tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58608858782422483752014-10-05T01:17:59.184-07:00The Crittenden ReportThis blog catalogues the reporting of ABC's "Religion Report" host, Stephen Crittenden and the questionable views and attitudes toward the Catholic faith and Catholic Church broadcast on his ABC program. The Religion Report describes itself as "...your guide to religious affairs in Australia and around the world...[offering] analysis of events shaping the world of religion..." If his program passes for analysis, then we should all get our 8c a day back.The Crittenden Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09939031370247731052noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5860885878242248375.post-72958968942757142382008-08-28T20:01:00.000-07:002008-08-28T21:29:08.862-07:00How to be a Catholic without really trying aka Oppression of a minority by RomeOkay, let's see if this week's program will take us where we think. Ready? Let's go...<br /><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Welcome to the program.<br /><br />As we reported last week, the Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane has been rocked <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[what, because they aren't used to an Archbishop threatening to do his job?]</strong></span> by a threat from Archbishop John Bathersby to close down one of its most thriving parishes <span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[right, so it's a magnificent parish that shouldn't be touched because it's thriving. Does Crittenden report is such glowing terms about the traditional and traditionalist communities that are "thriving" the world over or are they doing the wrong sort of "thriving"]</strong></span>,</span> St Mary's, South Brisbane.<br /><br />It seems that every major city has an inner-city parish like St Mary's, innovative, ecumenical, inclusive, social justice oriented, and radical and difficult to control. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[crikey, talk about being hoisted on your own pettard. If someone like Crittenden praises any organism like this within the Catholic Church, you know it's probably time that it be shut down]</strong></span><br /><br />Well late last week Archbishop Bathersby wrote a three-page letter to the parish detailing a number of liturgical and canonical irregularities that needed to be attended to. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[mere, "irregularities" that need "attending to". Regardless of who used the term first, this down-playing of the seriousness of the heterdoxy and heteropraxis is shameful. Call a spade a spade, Crittenden. Or don't you know the difference?] </strong></span>He complained <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[merely "complained" as though it were merely a matter of subjective taste, Crittenden?]</strong> </span>about the placement of a Buddhist statue in the church which he described as 'extremely reckless', and he also complained about a radical form of Eucharistic prayer used during mass, in which the whole congregation prays together, not just the priest. He also referred to the fact that a similar letter had been written in 2004 which he said had been dismissed as unimportant, and even ridiculed. 'My authority as Archbishop is scarcely recognised by the parish of St Mary's', he complains. 'In reality St Mary's South Brisbane has taken a Roman Catholic parish and established its own brand of religion.'<br /><br />But the Archbishop stopped short at carrying out his verbal threat to close the parish down.<br />On Monday night a packed meeting of parishioners resolved to try to work with the Archbishop and create a series of working groups to respond to his main areas of concern.<br /><br />That meeting was chaired by Karyn Walsh, who runs the big social justice initiative <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[we are sure Ms Walsh does great work. Crittenden's comment, however, politicises her and constitutes the usual illiberal tactic of protesting that "jack-boot Rome dares touch a modern day saint"]</span></strong> in the parish. It's called Micah, and when she spoke to me yesterday afternoon, I began by asking her to explain what it is that Micah does.<a name="anchor1"></a><br /><br />Karyn Walsh: Well we're based in the Parish House. We work collaboratively with a lot of community agencies in the area, we're the lead agency with the Brisbane Homeless Service Centre; we're providing a key assessment and referral service for people who are homeless as well as the street service that works seven days a week till midnight, working with people who are sleeping rough in parks and seeking accommodation.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: And this is all parish volunteers, is it? <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[see a pattern emerging? gee the leading questions he asks are annoying]</strong></span><br /><br />Karyn Walsh: No, no. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Good research, Crittenden. Like almost everything else]</strong></span> We receive government funding for a lot of the work, but it's backed up by parish contributions. For example, with the homelessness work that we do, we have government funding to have outreach workers and centre-based workers, but then the community gives about 40% of its income to support the social justice work, including contributions to a homelessness and housing fund. That fund would provide accommodation for hundreds of people by purchasing them a bed in a motel, or paying their bond, or paying rent and giving financial assistance to prevent people from being homeless. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[so, now that we have established that the good folk of the parish are committed to that part of the Catholic faith that requires all to "do unto others", let's move to those parts that are annoying and ultimately unimportant barnacles on the hull, you know, doctrine, dogma, discipline, liturgy...]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: What's your response to the Archbishop's letter?<br /><br />Karyn Walsh: Oh well I'd have many responses, but certainly I don't believe that making real division of social justice as a collective action of a community, is any less important than the spirituality of the community, and what I personally gain from St Mary's, and many others, is that the two are so intricately linked. Like it is the liturgy and the sustaining presence of the liturgy each week, that gives many people working in social justice the support and nurturing that they need to sustain their commitment to working with often very difficult and complex issues. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Fine, but what Church's "liturgy" might this be exactly...]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: He's clearly got concerns about irregularities in terms of the liturgy and various canonical irregularities as well. Does he have a point there?<br /><br />Karyn Walsh: Well obviously they're very real issues that this is the way Rome is talking about liturgy <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Ah, yes, but Rome hath no power in this Realm of Brisbane. They're bloody Italians, anyway, aren't they, not Aussies?]</strong></span> and talking about the way in which it wants to centralise the way in which people live their lives, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[You wot? "centralise"? Wethinks a modicum of catechesis is needed for Ms Walsh]</strong></span> but I think that many people at St Mary's, including myself, really had a vision from Vatican II that we believed in, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[too bad YOUR vision of Vatican II bears little relationship to THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL'S VISION of Vatican II and that no one wants to tell you this or educate you. Crittenden certainly won't.] </strong></span>that we <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>["We" the Catholic Church, or "we" being me and my mates that had issues if Church teaching and wanted to find a folksy way around it?] </strong></span>felt was more consistent with the gospel, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[the arrogance of the teaching that underpins the views expressed here is sublime! and, sadly, way too common]</strong></span> and believed that we should be able to live that out in communion with the church, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[yes, but which protestant church do you have in mind, exactly?]</strong></span> that it shouldn't be something that is always marginalised.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Karen, I understand you chaired the meeting on Monday night; what was the mood of the meeting?<br /><br />Karyn Walsh: The mood was very serious. People don't want to lose what in many cases they have had taken from them before. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Ms Walsh has common cause with the traditionalists in the Church. We can put them in touch with each other. Perfect opportunity for the Parish to do some ecumenical outreach]</strong></span> Obviously when you have 500 people together there is a range of diverse views, but it was a fantastic meeting in the way in which people listened and respected those views, because not everyone agrees with everything.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Is there a general sense of appreciation of the situation that Archbishop Bathersby sounds like he's in?<br /><br />Karyn Walsh: Oh definitely. In fact many members of the community respect that the Archbishop is also in a difficult position, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[so why put him in it????!!!] </strong></span>and that is why the community is going to take seriously the letter and not dismiss it, and reflect on the four areas that he outlined he wanted us to reflect on.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Do you think he would go so far as to close the parish down?<br /><br />Karyn Walsh: I can't speak on how far the Archbishop will go or even what the boundaries of his decision-making are. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[With respect to Ms Walsh, how can a practising Catholic NOT know that a bishop has jurisdiction in his own diocese. If this is not known, what else is not known: any idea about what is a proper understanding of the theology of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or what the documents of Vatican II really said?] </strong></span>That's not what I know. But I do have a respect for him as a person, as many people in the community do, and I think that it will be a sad day if he is forced to do that for the Catholic church in Australia, because it's very symbolic of where that Catholic church would be heading. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[WHAT?!!! This parish is barely Catholic in belief and practice, the legitimate authority whose job is to ensure all his parishes are, tries to act to address the problem, and people see incapable or unwilling to actually the problem and then have the gall to have a swipe at the Archbishop doing his job? CLOSE THEM DOWN BATS AND SEND 'EM ALL BACK TO SCHOOL ON PAIN OF EXCOMMUNICATION]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Was there any talk at the meeting on Monday night about what the parish would do if it were to be closed down? <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Is he actually going to delve on what THE PARISH thinks the irregularities are so unimportant?? Or does that risk having to speak about the real issues?]</strong></span><br /><br />Karyn Walsh: No, that's a premature question at this point. What was very clear at the meeting was that people do see that we are in communion with the archdiocese <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[How, if your faith and practice does not reflect the official teaching and practice of the Catholic Church?]</strong></span> and want to be. People want to be able to practice and have liturgy and have community the way it has happened at St Mary's. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Translation: we want to be protestants and do what protestants do because we don't like Catholic teaching and practice, but we still want call ourselves Catholics, so we'll pretend we are still Catholics by behaving like protestants and re-define what "Catholic" means by arguing "there's more than one way to be a Catholic".</strong></span>] They're not saying every church should be like that, but people do have options. We live in a world where people go, where they feel most comfortable. For many people at St Mary's this is their last option.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Karyn Walsh, who chaired Monday night's meeting at the Catholic parish of St Mary's South Brisbane.<a name="anchor2"></a>Well Archbishop Bathersby joins us now. Archbishop, thanks for joining us. You've also said a lot of positive things about the parish in your letter this week. Would it be fair to say that in the past you've been pretty supportive of the parish of South Brisbane, and that up to a point, you've been prepared to allow a fair degree of latitude? <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Bats, that's your first mistake, mate. Give 'em an inch...unless of course you're actually okay with what they do down there]</strong></span><br /><br />John Bathersby: Yes, I'd say so. What I was conscious of was certainly the attitude towards the social justice matters over there. But apart from that I didn't really know much about it, and certainly some of the things that came to light with the letters that were written overseas to Rome, certainly were a surprise to me. I did think that there was a certain laxity about the liturgy, but I didn't know to what extent. And that certainly was a revelation to me. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Shouldn't you have sent someone down there to find out???]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: You've made no secret of the fact that you're coming under pressure from Rome to act. Where precisely is that pressure coming from?<br /><br />John Bathersby: The congregation of the bishops, the congregation of the clergy, and the congregation for worship.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: All three? That's pretty heavy. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>['bout the only sensible observation he's made all day. May we suggest this suggests there is something seriously wrong in this parish, such is the extent of its "irregularities"]</strong></span><br /><br />John Bathersby: Yes, I imagine the letters could have been written to all three as far as I know.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: You've said that you've received many letters in the past few days yourself in support of St Mary's. But how many letters were received complaining about St Mary's?<br /><br />John Bathersby: Not a great number, although I think over the years there's probably been a trickle of letters that have been coming. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[And why not a "great number"? Because most wouldn't know a invalid Mass if it hit them in the face]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: You mentioned social justice. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[Must we again?]</span></strong> St Mary's is the No.1 social justice parish in Queensland, possibly in the whole of Australia. It's known for its work with the aboriginal community, you've threatened to close the parish down. Wouldn't that come at great cost, perhaps too high a cost?<br /><br />John Bathersby: Well it wasn't so much a threat as the fact that that could happen, you know, that it might need to be closed. But of course, yes, it certainly would come at a cost. The difficulty is that it's more or less branched out on its own, more or less shaping itself to its own desires, particularly in this whole area of the sacramental life of the church. It's flaunted itself again in regard to church law and church regulations, but certainly that whole area of worship and sacrament is very much out of kilter with the Roman Catholic church. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[Come on, Crittenden, delve into why this is an important issue, c'mon, mate...]</span></strong><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Coming out of the meeting that the parish held on Monday night, there do seem to be signs that the parishioners are looking at working with you and responding to your concerns. How much latitude does the parish have now? You mentioned those liturgical issues. Would conforming over a number of key liturgical and canonical irregularities be enough to pull them back from the brink, or realistically, is Rome going to continue being unhappy about well really everything these people represent? <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[What, doing good to others??? "Rome" ain't going to have a problem with that, don't you know. So, what exactly do "they represent", Crittenden? And if Rome does have an issue with what they represent, might it not be a fair gripe? Anyway, still in this interview we've got no idea what those gripes are (other than a statue of the founder of another religion appearing in the House of God)]</strong></span><br /><br />John Bathersby: From my point of view, it's interesting that there's a core of Catholics in there I think who don't really have a good understanding of what it means to be in communion with the Roman Catholic church and it possibly came as a bit of a surprise for them to have it spelt out in the letter that I sent. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[Crikey, such is the level of education in your Archdiocese, Bats. Are you going to fix this? How did it get to this?] </span></strong>Those people seem to be very much at home there, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[most people are at home if they're doing precisely what they want]</strong></span> but wouldn't have any idea that the actual liturgy that was being used, was certainly an unorthodox liturgy. I mean this is not untypical of the church at the present time, but there's a real ignorance about what is required, and therefore it needs to be spelt out for them. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Thanks, Bats, you've hit the nail square on. But what about your own liturgies. How orthodox (in the proper sense of the word are they???) Baptism, perhaps, Mass?]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Well indeed, the parishioners at St Mary's aren't the only ones introducing all kinds of liturgical deviations these days. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[No, because many priests and bishops don't give a brass razoo, what the Church says about her worship and despite the fact that liturgical innovation was condemned as soon as it started to happen after V2]</strong></span><br /><br />John Bathersby: Oh no, I wouldn't think so.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: It must be very hard to make people do it Rome's way if that's not what they want to do. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[There we go. Rome vs us. Not that the good Arch doesn't use that lingo too, of course...]</strong></span><br /><br />John Bathersby: Yes. I think in an increasing secular society you get a lot of secularity creeping into marriage ceremonies and also funerals, you know. I don't know how many times you would have found that Frank Sinatra had been trotted out, doing it his way. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Will this cue be taken up for the program's closing music?]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Let's just talk about some of the governance issues that you've raised. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Yes, why don't we talk "corporate", now, given that we've been talking politics]</strong></span><br /><br />You've described the parish as congregational, and you're clearly concerned about the level of lay leadership. Isn't St Mary's modeling a different way of being a parish that will become more important in the future as the priesthood dies out, and isn't that something the Catholic church is just going to have to begin getting used to? <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[On one hand, we shouldn't be suprised; it could be argued that this is just an interviewing technique. But on the other hand, it's so ubiquitous and direct, that you know he is just giving voice to views and criticisms he holds himself.]</strong></span><br /><br />John Bathersby: Well I don't know if the priesthood is going to, I'm certainly optimistic about it. I mean when you look at the very secular society in which we are, I mean there's no guarantee that that secularity is going to continue into the future. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Bats inspires confidence, doesn't he.]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: But this isn't just about secularity, there are a number of priestless parishes already in Australia now, and clergy numbers are declining, and there's I think a growing expectation <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[says who?] </strong></span>that the laity are going to be much more involved, already are much more involved in running parishes. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[involved in running the administrative side yes, but not being priests taking care of the sacraments. We know you don't care for the distinction, but it is important in Catholic theology]</strong></span><br /><br />John Bathersby: Well certainly that was the idea of Second Vatican Council that it's the people of God who come together within the church, and there was every encouragement given to lay people more or less being called into the mission of the church, and they responded to that with parish councils and pastoral councils. There's been a great deal of involvement of lay people. But I'm not as pessimistic about the future in regard to vocations to priesthood. I think that already those numbers are increasing, and I believe will continue to increase.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: But let's get back to this question of governance. Are you saying that in principle, you're opposed to the idea of laity having executive authority in the parish?<br /><br />John Bathersby: Oh yes I am, because the structure of the church is that the -<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: It's a clerical church in the end. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Snipe, snipe, snipe. he can't help himself]</strong></span><br /><br />John Bathersby: Yes, it's a clerical church, the priest is the leader. Now that shouldn't lean to an abuse of power in that particular situation. I mean the priest is supposed to be the servant of the people there. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[Let's not kid ourselves that Vatican II brought to end an era of some priests abusing their power. It's arguably even more prevelant now, because they are free of most claims to authority and ortodoxy and they can co-opt a bunch of hippy lay sympathises and pseudo-wannabe-priests (some of whom fit into the wymyn priest category). This parish is another case in point and in happens in small and large ways all over the world]</span></strong><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: It's clear that you've been very patient over a long period, and I'm very interested in the rather gentle tone of the letter that you sent the other day. You seem to be holding out an olive branch and trying to weave your way through what's obviously a very difficult situation. But placing the ball in their court to respond, are you also trying in all of this, to model a different way of being an Archbishop? <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Crittenden hasn't moved on from Julius II, folks. Tiresome, no?]</strong></span><br /><br />John Bathersby: (laughs) Well I was sort of hoping that all Archbishops would more or less act in that particular manner. I mean to lose a parish, or lose people is a tragedy wherever it happens. I would certainly want to welcome people back into communion with the church, than rather cut them off, I think that's an absolutely last resort.<span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong> [a point that you may have reached now]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: If it comes to closing the parish down, it may be that the community decides to stick together with their priest. I think there's even been talk of approaching the archdiocese to lease the church back. What action then from you if that was the outcome?<br /><br />John Bathersby: Well I'd say that if they are going to remain in an unorthodox situation, they break away and they're into a style of church that -<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: And does Father Kennedy continue with his faculties from you?<br /><br />John Bathersby: No it would certainly be a cut-off situation.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: And what about the church building?<br /><br />John Bathersby: Well of course it belongs to the archdiocese. It's a parish that goes back 100 years. It is a church of the archdiocese of Brisbane.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Archbishop John Bathersby of Brisbane.<a name="anchor3"></a>Well now to Adele Rice, another long-serving parishioner. Adele you say the mood of Monday night's meeting was very positive. What do you mean by that? Positive in the sense of agreeing to stand your ground, or positive in the sense of being willing to compromise?<br /><br />Adele Rice: I think probably looking for some kind of negotiation or reconciliation and I didn't actually hear the word 'compromise', <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[They sound like the Lefebrvists.] </strong></span>but I think many of us feel that we have a lot to lose and that we wouldn't like to lose that space. We wouldn't like someone or any authority to tell us that we weren't Catholic, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[HELLO?! How can such poor misguided views be expressed. How did it get to this?]</strong></span> and that we are prepared to work on it, yes.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: You say you wouldn't like to lose that space, it's a magnificent church, isn't it? <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[So it's a question of property, politics, corporate governance. Everything but faith and practice]</strong></span><br /><br />Adele Rice: It is. But it's what happens in it. It's a very joyful place, the liturgies are very relevant to everyday life. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[Are you saying that a Mass using the most beautiful sacred art, vestments and music, in which the congregation experience the transcendent and are present at the sacrifice of God's Son made present again for them, is not relevant to everyday life? God in front of them, is not relevant?]</span></strong> In my particular instance I've had four of my grandchildren baptised there, two of my three adult children married there, my husband buried from there, a grand-daughter buried from there.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: You've been in the parish 26 years?<br /><br />Adele Rice: Twenty-six years, yes. And the circumstances around our going and leaving a very traditional and very comfortable parish in the suburb where we lived, where we had no issues with the parish priest, he was a great family friend, but it was the teenage daughter who'd gone off to high school who was starting to be resentful of going to mass every Sunday and the same thing, and bobbing up and down and so on, and in her school she was introduced to some other feminist theological ideas, and was involved in painting a women's shelter, and so off the family went to St Mary's, and from the minute we set foot there and heard the sorts of talk and discussion and the readings, the priests are so well-read, and then we get the benefit of someone who can synthesise what those readings are. So it's a place of great learning, and for our family, we've never gone anywhere else since. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Yep, that's about how confused this person is. She's sincere, certainly, like so many are, but mightily and thoroughly confused. There's a lot of work to be done, folks, a lot.]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: We've heard about women preaching at South Brisbane, and I'm told you're one of the women who preaches.<br /><br />Adele Rice: Well I work in areas that deal with providing educational services and settlement services to immigrant and refugee young people. And so particularly when it's Refugee Week or Refugee Sunday or there's some issue about refugees, Peter or Terry might ask me if I will do the homilies on that weekend. So many times over the years at that particular Sunday or week or month, I will give those homilies and always have great support and feedback and often people ringing wanting to volunteer, wanting to help. You know, it's a place of solidarity. I feel very warmly supported there. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Right, who cares if you don't have the authority to do this. You just do what you want]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: What's your response to Archbishop Bathersby saying you're not in communion with the Catholic church as a parish?<br /><br />Adele Rice: I have a great deal of difficulty with that. I feel very much in community with the Catholic church, and with all humility, I don't think anybody has the right to tell me that I'm not in communion with my God and with my church. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Does God? Does Christ? Does the Vicar of Christ of Earth? Do his lawful delegates? Face it Ms Rice, you're not in communion and you don't want to be. You're a protestant. Of what sort, we don't konw, but a protestant you are. Good luck to you. But don't insult the rest of us by attempting to call yourself a Catholic. That's offensive.]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: And if the axe does fall, and Archbishop Bathersby closes the parish down, do you think the mood of the parish is to stick it out, stay together?<br /><br />Adele Rice: I suppose that's a very hard hypothetical question. I wouldn't like to be practicing or attending in parks or halls or things like that. To me, that's a consecrated, designated space, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>["designated"???! like a car parking spot. oh please]</strong></span> and I think in his heart, I mean I think he is probably a man with many good qualities as well, I honestly don't think he will close it down. I think he is putting it back on to us as a community, saying 'Will we rather close ourselves down? And I certainly don't think we will, I think there are too many people there who have too much to lose. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[like embracing the fullness of Catholic faith and practice.]</span></strong><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: But Adele, he may be forced to act.<br /><br />Adele Rice: Yes, well I think we probably have to deal with that if it happens, but if that did happen and there was that Roman sort of push, then as a member of my family said, Well maybe our family will start saying 'ex-Catholic' on the next census. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[they're in denial and have been for years, by the looks of it]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Adele Rice<br /><br />FRANK SINGS 'MY WAY' <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[do we need to comment?]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: The most un-Vatican-like of sentiments there. We couldn't resist that. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[no, you can't resist insulting the Catholic Church, we know. We hear it most weeks, Crittenden.]</strong></span><br /><br />* The parish priest of St Mary's, Fr Peter Kennedy, declined the Religion Report's requests for an interviewThe Crittenden Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09939031370247731052noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5860885878242248375.post-4973795613721086312008-07-22T23:22:00.000-07:002008-07-23T01:00:44.258-07:00Reactionaries at 10 pacesReturning from the success of World Youth Day, we recommence with last week's program.<br /><br />Brillant it is. Let's look at it.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Welcome to the program.<br /><br />Next week, July 25th, marks the 40th anniversary of the single greatest catastrophe to befall the Catholic church since the Reformation, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[We can't work out whether he's saying that the Reformation was a catastrophe too. We think it evidently was] </strong></span>when Pope Paul VI published his encyclical banning the pill, Humanae Vitae, leading to a theological Stalingrad from which the church has been unable to recover. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Lest you think there's any objectivity about this program, Crittenden manages to demolish that within 21 words of beginning his program]</strong></span><br /><br />The overwhelming majority of Catholics <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[How do you know? Anywa, no, the Catholic Faith is not determined by the vote of a majority (or even a minority). When are you going to understand this and get over it? It ain't Protestantism] </strong></span>have always <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[Always, folks]</span></strong> rejected the basic principles about sexuality which the encyclical lays out, that sex should only take place within marriage, and that it should always be open to the procreation of children, and defending the encyclical has come at great cost. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Defending the faith also came at great cost to the matyrs and saints, so how fatuous is Crittenden's statement here?] </strong></span>In fact it has contributed to the collapse of the sacrament of confession, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Huh? No, your secularist idea that there is no such thing as "sin" has lowered the numbers of confessions] </strong></span> the collapse of the priesthood, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[No, your protestant rejection of the sacramental priesthood has done that] </strong></span>and the purging of a brilliant generation of liberal theologians. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[There no such thing exists. They're called heretical, actually.]</span></strong> <br />But above all, Humanae Vitae led to the collapse of the very papal authority it was designed to defend, because everybody knew that the Pope had been talked into rejecting the overwhelming majority advice of his own papal advisory commission.<br /><br />Veteran Rome journalist, Robert Blair Kaiser had covered the Second Vatican Council in the mid-1960s in Rome and he also covered the ill-fated encyclical. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Media interviews media: wow, how trustworthy are these views going to be?]</strong></span><br /><br />Robert Blair Kaiser: Pope John XXIII started up a small birth control commission to advise him about the licaity of the pill, and then it kind of grew, and they thought, 'You know, let's start things much more from the foundations. And why do we say that contraception is intrinsically evil? And what's behind that? And let's re-examine our attitudes towards sex and women and so forth.' And then Paul VI came along after John XXIII died and expanded that commission to 73 members; lots of experts, scholars, lay people, psychiatrists, demographers and so forth.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: You of course were working for Time Magazine in Rome, covering the Second Vatican Council at exactly this time because the Council was going on while this commission was meeting in secret and you nearly broke the story.<br /><br />Robert Blair Kaiser: Highly secret, but I had a close friend, one of the members of the commission, the Pope's moral theologian in Bernard Häring, the Redemptorist priest from Germany, who leaked a lot of stuff to me, and he told me whom to go and interview. And I took a month-long trip to France and Belgium and Holland and interviewed all these great theologians, and they began to give me a rationale for changing the church's teaching on birth control, that it's not Catholic doctrine as such, it has nothing to do with the faith, it has everything to do with morals, but morals are all reasoned out. God didn't tell us not to practice birth control, this was a reasoned application of the first principle of the natural law: do good and avoid evil, and they began to realise that either contraception is moral or it's immoral. If it's immoral, the Pope can't give his permission to use it and if it's moral, we don't need the Pope's permission.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Back at the beginning, as you said earlier, the commission starts off with a very small group of I think six theologians. I think there's a suggestion, isn't there, that John XXIII appointed this German Redemptorist, Bernard Häring, because he knew what he wanted to do. So he wouldn't sort of stand out in a photograph of one, he added a few other theologians. But then Paul VI as you say, expanded it, and it included members of the laity, women. I mean it was in a sense a really pioneering....<br /><br />Robert Blair Kaiser: Oh yes, there were six married couples who really are the chief experts in this matter.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: It's a real pioneering venture in a way, in democracy. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[People see what they want to, folks. But when 100k young people attend confession at World Youth Day, and constitute what Crittenden and that Ilk describe as "conservative" Catholics, then they are written off as not reflecting the thougths of real Catholics]</span></strong><br /><br />Robert Blair Kaiser: It never happened in the history of the church that I know of, and it hasn't happened since. Lots of trouble there. So when the commission advised the Pope that we've got to change, there was a counter-attack by the conservatives <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[there's that word] </span></strong>inside the Vatican, Cardinal Ottaviani who was the head of the Holy Office, a post that Cardinal Ratzinger filled for 25 years before he became Benedict XVI.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: I think we should perhaps add that I think he was one of 11 or 12 children and people like Ottaviani , they didn't believe in family planning at all. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[Evil monsters of course]</span></strong><br /><br />Robert Blair Kaiser: No, not at all. So Otaviani convinced Paul VI who was kind of a fearful man at times, what will happen to your moral authority if you change a teaching as ancient as this one? Actually the teaching only went back to 1931 at the time Pope Pious XI wrote Casti Conubii in reaction to the Anglicans at the Lambeth Conference in 1930, who tentatively put their blessing on modified forms of birth control. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[Oh, come on brother, read your church history and understand it - you're meant to be an expert!]</span></strong><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: And basically married couples making up their own minds in the end.<br /><br />Robert Blair Kaiser: That's right, that's where the decision ought to lie, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Breaking News: it's where the decision DOES lie, regardless of what the Church teaches.] </strong></span>with the consciences of the people. So the ironic playout of that decision by the Pope, to turn his back on his own commission and write an encyclical called Humanae Vitae. He lost his moral authority, because Catholics around the world said, 'He doesn't know what he's talking about', and they did not follow this so-called teaching. And if a teaching is not received by the people, according to ancient Catholic tradition, it's not a teaching at all. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Gosh]</strong></span> If I tried to teach you the Pythagorean theorem and you don't get it, there hasn't been any teaching involved. Now that's an analogy, but it comes close to the idea that if the Pope tries to teach us something and we don't get it because of our own faith and our own experience, which is very important in this particular issue, marital morality, then it's not a teaching at all. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[How profoundly sad]</span></strong><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Take us back then to that couple of weeks in July 1968. International headlines went crazy, didn't they?<br /><br />Robert Blair Kaiser: There'd been a two-year long debate over this question. We were all expecting the Pope would follow the lead of his own commission. After all, why would he appoint a commission in order to turn his back on his own commission? So we were quite surprised, and so was the media. The media was primed for this and of course there were headlines all over the world and I remember Pat Crowley, Patricia Crowley was the wife of Patrick Crowley, they were the leaders of the Christian Family Movement in the United States -<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: And they had been on -<br /><br />Robert Blair Kaiser: - they'd been on the commission for four years, and they got a call in the middle of the night from the Associated Press reporter in Rome, asking for comment on this. Well that was the first they heard about it, and they just roared; they roared with laughter and then cried with sadness. 'What did we spend four years there for?' They couldn't believe it.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: They had brought really overwhelming evidence to the commission from married Catholic couples -<br /><br />Robert Blair Kaiser: Thousands of letters.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: - that the practice of natural family planning, of the rhythm method and all that stuff, was basically driving people crazy.<br /><br />Robert Blair Kaiser: It was. It was breaking up marriages, it wasn't working. You know what they called people who practiced rhythm? They called them parents.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Let's talk about the impact that the international reaction to Humanae Vitae had on Pope Paul VI personally, because it was a catastrophe for the church, but it was a personal disaster for Paul VI, wasn't it?<br /><br />Robert Blair Kaiser: He went into a funk, into a depression, he never wrote another encyclical.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Journalist Robert Blair Kaiser .<br /><br />ABC ARCHIVE MATERIALMan: It's clear that the issue of birth control is just the top of an iceberg. The nature of moral thinking and the issue that the notion and proper exercise of authority are there, not very far below the surface. We reject the use of authority which tries to bind consciences rather than inform them. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[Who is Archive Man kidding with this sophistry. God grants Freedom to the individual to follow what His Church teaches. That freedom does compel or force, it can't.]</span></strong> Especially on an issue where informed opinions within the church differ, have differed, and do differ. In a sense, what is regrettable about Pope Paul's statement is not whether he has banned the contraceptive pill or not, but rather the whole conception of papal authority that it portrays. During the Vatican Council the church came to see that the Holy Spirit dwells and acts in the whole people of God, and not just in the Pope and Bishops. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[As opposed to your interpretation where the Holy Spirirt dwells and acts solely in the "people of God" and not the Pope and Bishops]</span></strong><br /><br />Woman: The important thing which has emerged clearly in the past few weeks, is that each person must confront this question of birth control with an active and enlightened conscience. Pope Paul's teaching must be taken into account, informing one's conscience, but then so must the fact that this teaching seems to be widely separated from much recent and widespread thinking in the church.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: One of the few female voices at a public meeting held at Sydney University in 1968 to discuss the encyclical, Humanae Vitae.<a name="anchor2"></a>Well let's hear from Australian Catholic women who remember those debates. Morag Fraser is the former Editor of the Jesuit magazine, Eureka <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[oh, oh] </strong></span>Street, and in 2004 she was awarded an Order of Australia for her contributions to journalism and to debate on social issues. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Right, so she's credible on the science of theological then, much more than a bishop or a Pope] </strong></span><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span></strong><br />Morag Fraser: I think I remember where I was when I heard the decision. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[that's an impressive start] </strong></span>I was walking up the stairs in the house we were living in and I thought, 'Oh heavens, they've gone backwards', a sense of being stymied somehow. You thought things were going to be more rational. Life for women was going to change the openness that one had sensed with Vatican II was going to continue and then suddenly it was though a door closed, you know, slam, bang in your face.<br /><br />A turning point I think it was, Stephen, and certainly for me it was, because it was the moment when a young woman had suddenly to put into practice what she'd learned about the importance of conscience and making her own decisions. I was a young married woman. If I recall, I'd had one child and I'll never forget going to my gynaeocologist, a very good Catholic gynaecologist, he'd been my aunt's doctor, delivered my babies beautifully. I went to him on the first appointment after I'd had my first child, very easily, I was obviously a good breeder let's say, and saying 'What do I do about making sure I don't have millions of children?' and God bless him, the man said, 'I don't deal with that, you'll have to go to someone else.' And that's when I thought, 'Oh, OK, I've got to think about this and make my own decisions', and that was for me a turning point. I also remember being in the maternity hospital in Calvary in South Australia and discussing contraception. Do you want the full details? I'm sitting there, pretty well stripped to the waist, trying to produce milk because I was having a bit of trouble breastfeeding, and I'm visited by a priest I knew very well, so that was the style of the conversation. We had to work our way around the how does he cope with my sort of standing there with things attached to me. We talked about contraception and I can remember him saying to me, 'I think the Pope's right, it's consistent'. And I thought, 'Consistent? Or the right decision? I mean what are we talking about here? Are we talking about keeping a line and maintaining a line, because for me it was an absolutely crucial issue. I knew, understanding my own psychology, that I was not the person to have five children, and without some sort of contraception, it was very likely that I would have had more than that, and that was the first time really I'd had to face that kind of moral decision-making on my own.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Morag Fraser. <a name="anchor3"></a>Anne Henderson of the Sydney Institute was a young student in Melbourne in 1968.<br /><br />Anne Henderson: For me, it wasn't such a big deal because I wasn;t even thinking of getting married. I mean the teaching of the church about premarital sex is more interesting to me, it wasn't about contraception, and as far as I was concerned, as a young woman, it was horrible. You know, relationships inevitably lead to sex when you're that age, and you were constantly thinking in your own brain, you know, What's right? What's wrong? Will I get pregnant? I must say that I wasn't thinking about going to hell, I was thinking about 'Will I get pregnant'? And there were many of my generation who did. Had to go to backyard abortionists, and one of them, not necessarily in my group, but my own daughters wouldn't have had that problem.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: It was a moment that coincided with a different attitude towards authority, that period in the late '60s, that was all going on anyway. Was it a great 'Emperor has no clothes' moment perhaps?<br /><br />Anne Henderson: Well I think it became that. The interesting thing about it was while it was seen as the great victory, I think that was the moment when intelligent couples, educated people, it was the era when I was the generation where women were going to university, working class people were going to university, it was never going to be the same again, and quietly we had Vatican II just prior to this, and this was seen as a reversal in some ways of that moment of change, I think privately people took up that theme of private conscience, and that I remember being a very big issue during the '60s and '70s with Catholics. Quietly priests advised couples to make their own decisions. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[And what do you say to the intelligent couples, educated people and women going to university right now, who conclude that HV was right? ]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: And there's no doubt that that did happen either, that's what priests were saying.<br /><br />Anne Henderson: You bet. Yes, and they weren't telling their bishops what they were saying, and there were bishops who were upset that priests were doing this, and there were priests who were arguing about the right to do it, and others were pretending they didn't. And what happened over a decade I'd say, and by the time I was a married woman with children, was that couples just made their own decisions. I mean I laugh when people who are not Catholics saying 'Well this is against what the Pope says', well I mean for four decades now I would say Catholic couples just do their own thing.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: When the encyclical came out, it immediately turned into an argument about papal authority and in fact about infallibility. I think in Sydney there was a moment of comedy when the auxiliary Bishop of Sydney, Thomas Muldoon, was asked by the press whether the encyclical was infallible, and he said, 'No, no, it wasn't infallible, but it was almost infallible.' <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[How hard is it to understand a bit of nuance? Sorry, that's the issue isn't it. How silly of us]</strong></span><br /><br />Anne Henderson: Yes, maybe, but it's been proved to be not infallible. And I find the great irony with Humanae Vitae is that Muslim families are following the Pope much more strictly than Catholic families in the West. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Right villify the muslims now, such irrantional, ignorant, backward, mediaeval people they are. Or don't you have the stomach to do this?]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: In fact Anne, I think the only group of people that the Pope was able to enforce the teaching upon was Catholic bishops. Who were supposed to be celibate anyway.<br /><br />Anne Henderson: Yes, and the poor things had to teach it.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Anne Henderson.<a name="anchor4"></a>Well let's hear now from a woman theologian who has devoted her career to defending Humanae Vitae. Professor Janet E. Smith holds a chair in Life Ethics at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, and she argues that the encyclical on the pill was a prophetic document. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[No, surely not the other side of the argument???]</strong></span><br /><br />Janet E. Smith: Well Pope Paul VI predicted that four things would happen if contraception became widely used. One was there would be a decline in respect of women by men. There would be a decline in general morality. Combined with the first one, a kind of a disregard for a woman's physiological and psychological wellbeing. A prediction that governments would use contraception coercively, and then that people would begin to treat their bodies like machines. There are more or less four there, somehow I said it's five, but there were four. The reason I think that Pope Paul VI was right was because now we have rampant sex outside of marriage, out of control, babies born out of wedlock, massive numbers of abortions, massive increase of poverty, or single women with children. We now have in vitro fertilisation, we have babies being created in petrie dishes because of a huge increase of infertility, most of which can be traced to sexually transmitted diseases. There's just a crescendo of things that can be traced to the increased use of contraceptives. Not to mention HIV, AIDS etc.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: But Janet, wasn't Humanae Vitae really addressed to married couples? <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT? Has he read the document and thought about it??] </strong></span>And aren't all those things that are happening outside marriage, strictly speaking irrelevant to the scope of the document? <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>["STRICTLY speaking"!!!! The irony.]</strong></span><br /><br />Janet E. Smith: Not really, because preparation for marriage is very important to marriage, and people are preparing very badly for marriage. They're having multiple sexual partners before marriage, they get used to thinking of sex as being just a casual activity that has no relationship to babies. I think they choose their sexual partners quite casually and sometimes they choose their spouse quite casually. In the United States the vast majority of people are having sex before marriage and even the majority are co-habiting. And so I feel that they're doing a kind of sliding into marriage, sort of like, Either we're going to break up or get married.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: You mentioned abortion. You've argued that there's a connection between contraception and abortion, in that contraception has paved the way to more unwanted pregnancies which leads to more abortions. I don't really understand how that follows. I mean I would have thought that she'd only end up with more pregnancies if the contraception wasn't working.<br /><br />Janet E. Smith: Well that's what you'd definitely think. But the problem is that more access to contraception makes people think it makes sense to have sex outside of marriage, and these people are not prepared for babies. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[And this is the crux, isn't it] </strong></span>And well over 50% of the women going to abortion clinics to say that they were using a contraceptive when they got pregnant, and almost the majority of the rest of them say that they're contraceptively experienced, they've used it in the past. But around 80% are not married. Now that seems to suggest that it's because they're not married that they're having the abortion.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: However, I mean I've done a study of the statistics in South America for example, it's countries like Uruguay and Peru in the '90s that had no access to contraception and in fact where abortion was illegal, that have the high abortion rates. One in two pregnancies terminated, and of course terminated illegally endangering the lives of the mothers. It's Chile at the end of the '90s where the abortion rate is five times the US and Canada; it's places like Spain and Holland and Belgium where the abortion rate is actually much lower.<br /><br />Janet E. Smith: Well it does make a difference on what type culture contraception enters. Contraception enters into a culture that's been a traditional in its sexual morality, sex should be reserved for marriage, and where abortion has been illegal. When contraception is introduced, the sex outside of marriage just skyrockets, unwed pregnancy skyrockets, abortion skyrockets. When you introduce contraception into a culture that hasn't had contraception and has relied upon abortion as the primary form of contraception then yes, in those few cultures, it can reduce the number of abortions, that is true.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Professor Janet E. Smith.<a name="anchor5"></a>Well let's go back to the Second Vatican Council itself. It's November, 1964 and one after another, leading bishops stand up to speak in favour of relaxing the teaching on birth control. The most powerful of all those speeches was by the 84 year old Melchite Patriarch, Maximos the Fourth Saigh speaking in French .<br /><br />Translation: There is a question here of a break between the official doctrine of the church and the contrary practice of the immense majority of Christian couples. The authority of the church has been called into question on a vast scale. The faithful find themselves forced to live in conflict with the law of the church, far from the sacraments, in constant anguish, unable to find a viable solution between two contradictory imperatives, conscience and normal married life. Frankly, should not the official positions of the church in this matter not be revised in the light of modern theology, medicine, psychology and social science? In marriage, the development of the personality and its integration into the creative plan of God are all one. So the purpose of marriage should not be divided into primary and secondary ends. And are we not entitled to ask if certain official positions are not the product of obsolete ideas and possibly even a bachelor psychosis on the part of those who are strangers to this sector of life?<br /><br />Are we not unwittingly weighed down by a Manichean conception of man and the world, in which the work of the flesh vitiated in itself, is tolerated only for the sake of the children.<br /><br />Far be it from me to minimise the delicacy and gravity of this matter and the possible abuses. But here, as elsewhere, is it not the duty of the church to educate the moral sense of its children, to train them in personal and community moral responsibility, profoundly mature in Christ, rather than enveloping them in a network of prescriptions and commandments and purely and simply asking them to blindly conform.<br /><br />Let us see things as they are, and not as we wish them to be. Otherwise we risk talking in a desert. The future of the mission of the church in the world is at stake.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: That's the speech at Vatican II by Patriarch Maximos the Fourth Saigh, the Melchite Patriarch.<br /><br />Well let's hear now from a slightly older generation of Australian Catholic women who knew what Patriarch Maximos was talking about, women who were well into their child-bearing years when Humanae Vitae was published in 1968. They were also the first generation of women for whom the pill was available. In fact my producer, Noel Debien and I are both children of that generation of women, so we invited our own Catholic mothers onto the program and we were very surprised when they accepted.<a name="anchor6"></a> <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[So Crittenden and Debien come from the angry lapsed hippy Catholic set that wants to to continue calling themselves Catholic, when in fact they are Roman Protestants]</strong></span> Judy Debien had her first child in 1962. My parents went through a lot of anguish trying to start a family. I'm the eldest of Irene's four surviving children. I asked them what the publication of Humanae Vitae meant for women in their child-bearing years.<br /><br />Irene Crittenden: At that stage, it was like a person getting married today. Here I am 30, but I've already had six full time pregnancies. So then the worry set in about how will I not have a big family. It hadn't occurred to me before, because I'd had all the misery of losing babies. At no stage did I ever think 'I'll go and see what a priest tells me I'm allowed to do.' I certainly talked about it to a priest friend, and I told him that my doctor had mentioned the rhythm method, and he said, 'I reckon you'd have to be neurotic to go through all that wouldn't you?' and I was happy to hear it but I was -<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: It was thermometers and stuff like that?<br /><br />Irene Crittenden: Yes, get out of bed - sit up in bed and take your temperature and all that, and then decide, Well tonight's the night. I mean how could anyone live like that? So I thought it was pathetic, and I never ever put it into practice. Never. But my doctor was the person I trusted and believed in, and he was wonderful and he made some suggestions, but it was up to my individual conscience - not me, us, Keith and I both, we decided that after four children we'd - to be responsible parents, our family was really finished, big enough.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Judy, what did the publication of Humanae Vitae and the debate over contraception mean for you?<br /><br />Judy Debien: I think it means that whereas before I'd just had the babies as they happened along. By the time I got to three, I can remember a friend offered me some solution, a pill that you used, which I disliked, used it once, felt guilty, that was the end of that. When I was having the fifth child, a friend of Mum's was there and he was a tough wharfie fellow who was a bit of a character, and looked at me and said, 'You really are exhausted'. And I said, 'Yes, I've never felt like that before with the other pregnancies but I really feel that I can't do this again.' And I thought to myself, as many had said to me, Well it's all very well for the priests to hand out the directives, but I thought they're not going to be there to look after the kids if I'm sick in bed.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Or look after you.<br /><br />Judy Debien: Well, true. But I was mainly thinking of the children, and I just decided then that I would have the tubes tied, straight after I had the fifth child. Also I had worked for doctors for most of my life, so I sort of had people to talk to, but I can remember talking to one fellow about the rhythm method, and as he said, 'You're not geared that way. The time of the month that they're telling you to abstain is actually the time that you're really wanting to be with your partner.' So I thought that was one thing laughing at the other, in a sense. Talking about using natural methods, and it just doesn't work that way.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Irene, you've talked to me about the fact that the Vietnam War was going on at this time, and that you were very impressed by some of the young blokes who were conscientious objectors and refusing to go to war, and that there was this thing going on of people rejecting political authority, and this debate about spiritual authority going on.<br /><br />Irene Crittenden: At that stage I had two baby boys, and I tried to put myself in the position of a mother who had boys aged 18 and whatever age you were conscripted, and I would never have wanted to see any boy go to the Vietnam war. We were all confused about why we were there <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[A good basis for making decisions] </strong></span>and I did admire people who objected and I would have backed anybody who objected. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[So, what has this to do with obejctive morality? It's a political position]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: And how did that affect your views about contraception? The two things were going on at the same time.<br /><br />Irene Crittenden: Well it was all in my opinion, individual conscience, and I feel and have always felt that I have to make up my mind. I have to answer to my maker, I don't have to go up there to my maker and say, 'Somebody told me to do so-and-so', I have to answer for myself. And I felt I was doing the right thing by thinking about a problem, any problem, the war, having babies, and making up my own mind.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Judy, looking back, do you feel that your generation of Australian Catholic women were in the front line of making a big decision?<br /><br />Judy Debien: Yes, we were. As I said, the guilt feelings when you use the pill for whatever reason, supposed regular cycles, was an absolute joke, but there were guilt feelings there because I'd been reared in Catholic schools, I had that enormous guilt that I carried for quite a while. But I got past that because I felt my conscience was clear.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Irene, had the fact that you hadn't been brought up a Catholic, that you hadn't gone to Catholic schools, did that change your attitude towards I guess priestly authority?<br /><br />Irene Crittenden: I think it did Stephen, because I didn't grow up with fear, and the wonderful presentation nuns that gave me instruction didn't go on about fear, and so I never ever had a problem with it. I don't remember them talking too much about individual conscience but they certainly didn't tell me that this is a line and you must do this, this and this. And I never felt I had to.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: What's your response then to the kind of John Paul II line that if you were contracepting, even after you'd had five or six babies, you're sort of part of the culture of death, that you're rejecting God.<br /><br />Judy Debien: I didn't feel that way.<br /><br />Irene Crittenden: I didn't either. If you were aborting babies it would be different, but contraception, or avoiding pregnancy in some way -<br /><br />Judy Debien: Preventing.<br /><br />Irene Crittenden: Preventing, was a responsible thing to do.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Irene Crittenden and Judy Debien, with an interesting counterpoint to the younger generation <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Yes, those nasty young people who don't know anything about life or religion, but just carry on in an intolerable way. That shows us up] </strong></span>that's all over the airwaves with World Youth Day this week, and a counterpoint to Cardinal Pell's call this week to Australians to populate or perish.<br /><br />We'll have more coverage of World Youth Day next week. Thanks to producers Charlie McCune and Noel Debien and to Michael Davis for the reading.The Crittenden Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09939031370247731052noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5860885878242248375.post-11317946411913922662008-07-08T20:09:00.000-07:002008-07-09T02:35:10.615-07:00The End of the Catholicism: One Man brings it crashing down...S. CrittendenWe knew it was coming and no surprises.<br /><br />On the cusp of the Holy Father's visit to Australia for World Youth Day, let's look at Crittenden's predicable program.<br /><br />The degree of the Anti-Catholic diatribe contained in the blurb on his website describing the program content surprised even us. Judge for yourselves.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>With just a few days to go before World Youth Day in Sydney, we ask whether the<br />visiting pilgrims from around the world are going to be presented with a real<br />church or a fantasy church. On the one hand there is a strong emphasis on<br />Catholic identity as traditionally conceived, and an attempt to revive a range<br />of traditional Catholic pious practices including the veneration of saintly<br />relics, individual confession, the Latin Mass, eucharistic adoration and the<br />stations of the cross. On the other hand there is a failure to confront modern<br />problems. We look at the attempt to exclude young gay Catholics, the<br />never-ending saga of sexual abuse, and the reality of a diminishing Australian<br />church now facing an acute priest shortage.</blockquote><br /><br />He's priceless, isn't he? The Old Dear. Religious vilification is alive and well, folks.<br /><br />Now for the program proper.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Welcome to the program.<br /><br />With just a few days to go before the Pope arrives in Australia, there's unprecedented negative publicity around World Youth Day. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[From whom? You know things are dire when the subject of a story is the media itself</strong></span>] Last week there was a public outcry over the so-called Anti-annoyance powers given to the New South Wales Police. This week, even as victim support groups were calling for a Papal apology and Cardinal Pell was feeding those expectations, the clerical sexual abuse crisis was still crashing around the church's head.<br /><br />In the ACT the Marist Brothers are arguing they bear no liability for 30 compensation claims from former students because the abusing Brother, now in jail, wasn't technically an employee of the order. That's despite a psychiatrist's report that says Brother Kostka Chute repeatedly asked the Marist Order for help, but for years received none.<br /><br />And of course Cardinal Pell has been explaining why he misrepresented the findings of the church's own internal investigation into allegations of abuse made against Sydney priest Terence Goodall, writing to one victim saying his complaint had been upheld, but writing on the very same day to another victim stating that his complaint had been unsubstantiated and that no other complaint of sexual assault had been received against Father Goodall.<br /><br />If anything, yesterday's attempt by the Cardinal to explain the matter away only made things worse.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[We confess at the Report to not having followed these matters closely, so we don't feel in a position to comment on their accuracy. Although, given their source...we'll let you make up your own minds]</strong></span><br /><br />George Pell: Yes. That was poorly put. I was attempting to inform him that there was no other allegation of rape - and that, the incidents were run together. That was done badly.<br />Tony Eastley: You said that soon after you made this initial mistake to MR Jones, that a subsequent letter you expressed sorrow at what Mr Jones suffered. When was that sent to him? Was that in the same year?<br />George Pell: Yes, that I think, was - a couple of months later. But I didn't realize that I had made a mistake at that stage. Because I thought that, that phrases like "aggravated assault" which I would apply only to, to rape - and that was the distinction I was trying to make - it was not useful. But I didn't realize the mistake at that stage.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Cardinal Pell, speaking to Tony Eastley on the 'AM' program.<br />Meanwhile last Friday a number of schools and parishes who had been preparing to host overseas pilgrims, were told their facilities and their hospitality will no longer be needed. Plans to accommodate pilgrims in many public schools have apparently also been dropped. As one source in the Catholic system <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Does he mean the Catholic school system?]</strong></span> told The Religion Report this week: "the amount of wasted infrastructure is overwhelming, there is no getting that money back".<br /><br />Well today on the program, we ask whether one reason for all the negative publicity around World Youth Day is the huge disconnect between its emphasis on a fantasy church- a church of big crowds and idealistic, mass-going young people <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[he means, one reality he doesn't like, can't explain and can't understand] </strong></span>- and the reality <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[what he perceives as reality and think can be explained in his terms]</span></strong> of a diminishing Australian church with an acute priest shortage and a sexual abuse crisis that just lurches on and on.<a name="anchor1"></a> Paul Collins <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[...here we go, Mr Catholic himself]</strong></span> has just written a new book on the Australian church called 'Believers: Does Australian Catholicism have a future?' He says there's a lot of anti-Catholic feeling just below the surface in Australian society, especially in the media, <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[exhibit A is a program like this - thank's Mr Catholic for your acute powers of observation] </span></strong>and he fears that World Youth Day is feeding a public backlash against Catholics and Catholicism. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[Well, may be it needs to, so that that vilifiers can be seen for what they are]</span></strong><br /><br />Paul Collins: What the World Youth Day is doing is providing an opportunity for that type of stuff to come to the surface. That doesn't mean that World Youth Day hasn't been a fairly ham-fisted performance and rather poorly presented, and it's not just World Youth Day's fault. I mean the New South Wales government simply has to accept a massive part of the responsibility for that. They in their typical fashion have wandered into this without thinking it through and without knowing the implications of it, and now whoever comes home to roost, is coming. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[So, if this is essentially a political issue and one of bureaucratic organisation, why are we hearing about it on a "Relgion" program?]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: A few months before Pope John Paul II died, I interviewed Hans Küng, the great <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>["great" in what sense?] </strong></span>Liberal Catholic <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[as opposed to Catholics, of course] </strong></span>theologian who said something in the interview that has stayed with me. That what John Paul II was on about was a church of the façade, that he failed to address any of the deep problems confronting the church but he spent all his time and energy creating the illusion of reinvigoration and success. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[So, the whole of this program is based on a hypothesis by Kung]</strong></span> In other words, the Catholic church under John Paul II fits squarely into the bread and circuses scenario <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[O, whore of Babylon...</strong></span>] that we all know we've been living through in politics. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[politics, not faith]</strong></span> Is that what World Youth Day began as part of?<br /><br />Paul Collins: Well look, the world in which the church operates especially in the Western world is a world which is driven by media image. It's driven by appearance on television, it's driven by a pseudo sense of intimacy. There is this kind of pseudo-intimacy. Now I wrote an article about John Paul's use of the media in a book many years ago, published in the States entitled 'Has the Vatican Destroyed Vatican II?' The essay that I wrote was about the way in which John Paul used the media. He was the omnipresent Pope. Innocent III in 1215 may have had pretensions to being almost God, certainly the Lord of the World.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: But John Paul pulled it off?<br /><br />Paul Collins: But John Paul pulled it off . Because of modern media. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[So, the Catholic Church manipulates the media and the message? These two are good aren't they. "Man bites dog" all over again.]</strong></span> You couldn't pull it off without television, you couldn't pull it off without telephone instant communication and travel. His approach in Third World countries was quite different. It was there based on massive crowds. The largest crowd in human history was a World Youth Day in Manila, I can't remember if it was 1994 or 1995, estimated between 4-million and 5-million people in one crowd. So that there was a kind of I think, a dual approach taken, but I do think Küng's phrase that a papacy of façade is true, I think. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[No, we're not sure you DO think, old boy] </strong></span>However, I think that there are some good things going for World Youth Day.<br /><br />The good things are it brings young people together. It brings them together within a reasonably structured context. The research work that Richard Rymarz at the Australian Catholic University in Melbourne, but he's now moved to the University of Alberta in Canada, Richard who is I think in town at present, looking at this particular World Youth Day, because it's never been assessed before; no-one's ever done a research project on it as far as I know. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[Scientific, and empirical hypotheses these are, dear readers]</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span></strong><br />Stephen Crittenden: Who comes, and why, and what happens after?<br /><br />Paul Collins: Who comes and why, and what happens after. Richard had done quite a bit of work with the ones from Australia who went to Cologne, and he makes a number of interesting observations. One of the observations is that certainly if they travel from overseas, they're already committed, and what it does is, it brings them from a committed Catholicism into a much more involved Catholicism. [<span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>We can feel the words fanatic and fundamentalist coming on...] </strong></span>They actually begin to work within the context of the church. But his guess is, and I hope I'm quoting him correctly here, but certainly I've heard this from other people as well, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[boy, this is reliable then: scientific and empirical based on hear-say and supposition...] </strong></span>that their observation is that young people love being together, they love hearing the Pope articulate ideals, love hearing the Pope say the ideal of premarital chastity. They love the idea of a commitment to social justice, a commitment to the environment, all of those things that are now kind of popular causes for Popes to talk about. But young people love to hear the ideals. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Which of course is all bad, isn't it, because we grown-ups know better, we grown ups know that the ideals these Popes and the message of Christ they continually proclaim calls each one of us to a holiness that is hard, far too too hard and needs to be watered down if we grown ups are still to call ourselves "Catholic"]</strong></span> But that doesn't mean - and this is where the disconnect is - that doesn't mean that they're going to do anything necessarily about that in their own lives. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[Crikey!! I bet this is empircally researched too! Mr Catholic as Eternal Judge]</span></strong>. That doesn't mean that they're not going to be engaged in intimate activity with their girlfriend or their boyfriend. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[For pete's sake, how does this guy know this???] </span></strong>They think it's a good thing to hear it, but then they're just like older people. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Are they?? Reeeally?] Priest-for-life Mr Collins may be wrong there.]</strong></span><br /><br />So I think that bringing people together, giving them that sense of the experience of the universal church, what a wonderful thing it will be for the kids from Timor, from East Timor, from the Pacific, that's terrific. Does it do anything of substance? Not in my view. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Let's assume you can tangibly measure it for just a moment: would it be fair to ask how priests and religious come out of it or young folk who attribute a spiritual re-awakening to this event? For all his evangelicalness, we don't think the Good Doctor believes in the Holy Spirit]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Paul Collins. <a name="anchor2"></a>Well there's no doubt that this World Youth Day will feature a strong emphasis on a restorationist pre-Vatican II theology and spirituality. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[See what we mean?] </strong></span>When the Pope arrives in Sydney he'll be resting up at a centre on the outskirts of town run by Opus Dei. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Horrible, terrible] </strong></span>When he leaves, there's talk that he'll offer World Youth Day pilgrims a plenary indulgence, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[thanks, Martin Luther] </strong></span>and the city has suddenly been flooded with the relics <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[worse! Surely, Catholics don't believe in that any of that mumbo jumbo any more...</strong></span><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>] </strong></span>of young Italian saints. Pier Giorgio Frassati is at St Benedict's, Broadway, and the Passionist order has brought out a reliquary containing the bones of three saints, Maria Goretti, Gabriel Possenti and Gemma Galgani.<br /><br />I asked Passionist father Tiernan Doherty to tell me about their lives.<br /><br />Tiernan Doherty: Maria Goretti was the daughter of a couple who were very poor, and through their poverty they went to assist at a farm and Dad worked on the farm on the land, and also the Mother had to work on the land because eventually Dad got malaria. So young Maria Goretti, at the very young age of 9, had to do all the housework, and she was really pushed into maturity as a young girl to take on adult responsibilities of the housekeeping, and sharing the house - another gentleman was also sharing that household with two sons, one son's name was Allesandro, but Allesandro was sexually attracted to young Maria, he was 18, she was, as I said, 11, he approached after a number of times, he propositioned her and she refused, and in anger he then stabbed her some 11 times in the back. And she survived that for about a day after, and what is interesting about Maria Goretti is that she not only forgave him, but she said a very interesting thing which could not have just come from the human heart <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[it would seem to be a man of faith talking, Crittenden, you should learn something from him. Respect for difference, if nothing else]</strong></span>. She said, 'I would like him one day to be with me in heaven'.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: And she died in 1902 didn't she?<br />Tiernan Doherty: That's right, yes.<br />Stephen Crittenden: And canonized when? About 1950?<br />Tiernan Doherty: Yes, 1950 she was canonised, that's right. My mother was at the canonisation.<br />Stephen Crittenden: And she's the best-known of the three.<br /><br />Tiernan Doherty: She is, and I think it's a lovely story of restorative justice because eventually after being in gaol for some eight years, he was quite cranky about things. But he changed, he had a transformation, a dream of Maria Goretti, she came to this dream and she simply presented flowers, which turned into lights in his hand and he came out of that dream, he was changed, and he sought out the mother and he asked for forgiveness, and what is really incredible, in 1937 at Midnight Mass at Christmas, a little country Italian town, both the murderer and the mother of the victim went to Holy Communion together on Christmas Midnight Mass. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[You would have thought, Crittenden might have commented, but...]</strong></span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Now tell us about the other two: Gabriel Possenti, 1862 he died aged 24, and he was actually a member of the Passionist order.<br /><br />Tiernan Doherty: That's correct, yes. Gabriel is really a little bit like the story of St Theresa of Lisieux. He's an ordinary person, had an ordinary life, he was a good horse-rider, he liked sport and he became known by the girls in the town at Spoleto as The Dancer. And when he graduated, there was a girl that he was friendly with and there was a hope between the two families that they would marry. But he slipped away after his graduation and entered the Passionists.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: But he doesn't actually get ordained, he dies before he's finished his novitiate.<br /><br />Tiernan Doherty: That's correct. He and Gemma both died of tuberculosis, there was no penicillin and he was 24 when he died, and Gemma was 25 and she also died of tuberculosis.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Now she dies in 1903 and in some ways she's the strangest of them all, isn't she? She's a stigmatic.<br /><br />Tiernan Doherty: Well we'd say perhaps first of all she was a mystic and Gemma Galgani loved Christ and in her prayer life with him she had mystical experience, which seems strange perhaps in the modern age, but I think the best way to understand it is that a mystic means somebody who knows God by experience, not just reads about him or just follows commands.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Because she doesn't just know God, does she, she's visited by the Devil and tormented every day.<br /><br />Tiernan Doherty: Yes, there's said to be some manifestations that way. And going back to what you saying about the stigmata; she had an apparition of the crucified Christ where flames came from his wounds and entered her own body and then she came out of the trance, she found herself wounded, the same wounds of Christ in her body, and she used to bleed on Friday and she would go each Friday into a tranced experience. The passion of Jesus and then the wounds would heal on the Saturday.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Tell us about the relics themselves, Tiernan, they've been here since May, and from what I can tell from the photo I've seen, all three relics are really in one small coffin <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>["coffin": yep, dumb it down, and please don't use the right terminology, that may indicate you've actually care about facts]</strong></span>, is that right?<br /><br />Tiernan Doherty: That's right, a reliquary. It is in the shape similar to a coffin, that's correct.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: And they're not visible, you can't see the relics themselves? <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[What, they don't realy exist? Is that the hocus pocus angle you're aiming for?]</strong></span><br /><br />Tiernan Doherty: No they're bones of the saints; a number of bones, and they're behind each image of the saint that's there. And there's the image there on the front so people want to pray before the reliquary, when they kneel they see the particular image of the saints.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: And how do young kids or young adults react?<br /><br />Tiernan Doherty: Surprisingly very well. I know relics are not everybody's cup of tea, and they're not obligatory as part of the Catholic faith. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[You've learned something today Crittenden, let's see you apply that knowledge in future programs] </strong></span>But what I found was in talking to young people, the relics became the opportunity to hear the story. I mean how do you start a story and how to get people interested.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: You run them as a talking point, almost? <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Good boy, dumb it down]</strong></span><br /><br />Tiernan Doherty: Yes. I mean as Catholics we believe in the communion of saints, which is this idea that our spirit lives on, and particularly when we celebrate the Eucharist we remember the dead and the dead are present to us because they are alive in Christ still. So coming to the presence of the relics are to first of all come into the spirit of that person is still alive in Christ to us, and to realise these people really existed, and to connect to their story, and if it speaks to you, good.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: They're all Italians, not just your three the Pierre Georgio, they're all Italian. I'm not sure if there are any African or Chinese or Anglo stigmatics at all. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[That's right, the Catholic Church is just a Roman thing, and everyone hates Rome] </strong></span>I can't think of any. Seems to be an Italian kind of thing. But they were all Italian and they all died young, and I wonder, I mean you say you use them as a talking point; I wonder how you use their lives as models for young people in 2008, who are presumably hoping to live long, productive, happy lives. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[...che?]</strong></span><br /><br />Tiernan Doherty: Of course. And I mean we're grateful we're not in their situation where we lose siblings and do not have penicillin and modern medicine to help us. However, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Sometime we think the politeness that is shown to such ignorant and ridiculous questioning is misplaced. How much more effect might the good Father have had if he said: "Well, no, you moron." Wishful thinking we know. But we digress...] </strong></span>I think the three of them put together are quite dynamic presentations to us in the Christian life. That first of all our young people need to be encouraged through the Gospel to stand up for peace and justice in the world and Maria Goretti's a nice story of restorative justice. That Gemma speaks to us, we all are called to be mystics in the sense of experiencing God and knowing in our hearts if we believe in him, it's not just a head trip, but a heart journey. And thirdly, that God is found in the ordinariness of life. Gabriel was an ordinary person, he just did the ordinary things very well, from his heart. A lot of miracles happened after his death, not during his life.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Passionist Father Tiernan Doherty.<br /><br />And if you want to visit the relics of St Gemma, St Gabriel and St Maria Goretti they'll be at St Brigid's church Marrickville - the headquarters of the Passionist order in Australia. And Pier Giorgio Frasati will be at St Benedict's Broadway with an excellent photographic<br /><br />exhibition.<a name="anchor3"></a>Another strong emphasis of World Youth Day will be on encouraging young people to take up the practice of Eucharistic adoration. What's that? I hear you ask.<br /><br />Well Christine McCarthy runs the Eucharistic Adoration Society in Australia.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[This is going to be good...]</strong></span><br /><br />Christine McCarthy: Eucharistic Adoration is the worship of Christ present in what appears to be bread in what we call the sacred host or the Holy Eucharist. Catholics believe that Christ is really and fully present in the bread and wine which are consecrated during the mass. And after the mass, the consecrated host left over after Communion are placed in what's called the <a title=" Tabernacle" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tabernacle">Tabernacle </a>in the church, which is a little safe. That's there so communion can be given to the sick, and also for people to come to pray to Jesus who is really and fully present in the Eucharist there.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: I must say very few Catholics I've spoken to seem to be familiar with the term 'adoration'. But they all ask whether it's the same as <a title=" Benediction " href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benediction_of_the_Blessed_Sacrament">Benediction </a>. Is it the same thing?<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[How revealing: what "Catholics" are you speaking to Crittenden?]</strong></span><br /><br />Christine McCarthy: Yes, <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[Well, we wouldn't have said "yes" given what follows...these Catholics are far too polite; that's their trouble] </span></strong>Benediction is an aspect of <a title=" Eucharistic adoration " href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_adoration">Eucharistic adoration </a>. It's a special ceremony that a priest or a deacon can conduct. The sacred host is put into what's called a <a title=" monstrance " href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monstrance">monstrance </a>, which is I guess a "showing" thing. It's a beautiful vessel which actually shows usually a golden vessel which shows the host, so people can very readily see this aspect of the Eucharist and it's put on the altar, your monstrance is put on the altar and there are hymns, beautiful, usually Latin hymns, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[don't know about that Ms McCarthy!] </strong></span>but sometimes in English and there are beautiful vestments and flowers and candles, and it's a very short ceremony of adoration.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: But there's a much longer version <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[dumbing it down, brother, dumbing it down] </span></strong>as well, isn't there? This is perpetual adoration.<br /><br />Christine McCarthy: Well perpetual adoration is I suppose you'd call it the Crème de la crème of the worship of Christ outside of mass. This is 24 hours 7 days a week adoration of the Eucharist.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: So the Eucharist is exposed, as they say, exposed on the altar all the time in a parish church or a chapel or whatever.<br /><br />Christine McCarthy: Yes. Although it can take place without exposition but it's usual that there's exposition, in the monstrance as we're saying, and there's usually a roster of people who come to pray. You have to have somebody there, because it's regarded as irreverent if there's nobody there, and there's no point in having exposition if there's nobody there to get the benefits from that. So people comer all day, all night and they'll make great efforts to even come long distances to be there, because it's very special.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Now it's pretty clear, isn't it Christine, that these practices in particular fell out of favor after the Second Vatican Council <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[who's doing was that, dear boy? was it a change in teaching and belief?]</strong></span> and there does seem to be an attempt with this World Youth Day to reintroduce a range of older Catholic pious practices: individual confession, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[hellooooooooo, anybody home???] </strong></span>veneration of the relics of saints, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[helloooo?] </strong></span>the Stations of the Cross, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[helloooo?] </strong></span>the Latin Mass; <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[nup] </strong></span>what's going on here? Is this an attempt to return the church back to a, well an older kind of period of the church that certainly most young people would not be familiar with? <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Chestnuts, anyone?]</strong></span><br /><br />Christine McCarthy: Well in a sense that's probably not really true, because Eucharistic Veneration for instance has always been a very strong component of World Youth Day. Pope John Paul II instituted it as you probably know, it was his baby, his inspiration: World Youth Day. And he was always a big promoter of Eucharistic Adoration. And the young people who have been attending the World Youth Day since the first one in 1985 have always been very keen to be a part of Eucharistic Adoration. It's something that the young people really seem to feel very close to.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: And how popular is it in the Australian parishes?<br /><br />Christine McCarthy: Well there are eight places where there's Perpetual Adoration in Australia.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: This is just in other words going on all the time in a particular location?<br /><br />Christine McCarthy: That's right, yes, day and night. Now this is a movement that's been going on in the world for about the last 2-1/2 decades, it's not just associated with World Youth Day. In the US there are about 1100 places where there's Perpetual Adoration. In the Philippines there are 500, and in Korea there are about 70.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: I can see how the idea, well I've always thought of the idea of Christ enthroned on the altar in a glittering, golden monstrance, was typical of <a title=" Tridentine theology " href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass">Tridentine theology </a>, the theology of the Council of Trent, a baroque thing. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[AAAAAAAAAAAAARH, the Council of Trent. The Inquisition is coming too, we can feel it] </span></strong>Is there some tension between a static view of the Eucharist enthroned up on the altar, and a more I suppose you'd say, a more active view of the Eucharist <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[go back to school, old boy] </strong></span>that came out of Vatican II as an active event of the community? <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Say, it, Ms McCarthy, say it!!]</strong></span><br /><br />Christine McCarthy: Well Eucharistic Adoration stems from the mass, <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[couldn't you just say, "NO, YOU IGNORANT MAN"?] </span></strong>because you can't have the presence of Christ except that it's consecrated at the mass. But at the same time, it leads back to the mass,<span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong> [We</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>re getting annoyed about Mass with a small 'm'] </strong></span>so people who are praying before Christ in the Eucharist outside of mass, are going to have their faith increased and are going to want to attend mass more frequently.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Christine McCarthy.<br /><br />One of the positive untold stories about World Youth Day is that a lot has been done to ensure overseas pilgrims are able to come to Australia from the widest possible range of countries. For example, one inner-city parish will be hosting schoolkids from the USA, Niger, Malawi, Austria, Poland, Vietnam, the Philippines, Pakistan, Slovenia, Tanzania, Bolivia, Italy, Puerto Rico, China and the Republic of the Congo. That's really very impressive.<a name="anchor4"></a>But the emphasis on inclusivity <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[we thought it was inclusiveness?] </strong></span>only goes so far. It doesn't include young gay Catholics. The Jesuits have been ordered to withdraw their plan to host a forum with the gay Catholic group Acceptance and PFlag, the organisation for parents and friends of young gays and lesbians.<br />One of the presenters of that forum was to have been Father Donald Godfrey, SJ, who runs a youth ministry at the University of San Francisco. I asked him why the church would cancel such an event.<br /><br />Donald Godfrey: It's either a mistake that they misunderstand what this was about, because many dioceses, at least in the United States where I live, sponsor just such a conversation. Los Angeles diocese <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[And which Catholic Church does the apostate diocese of LA belong to??? With its esteemed Cardinal Archbishop, gloriously reigning] </strong></span>for example has designated certain parishes for gay and lesbian Catholics, explicitly to provide a safe space for Catholics who are gay, to have a conversation, to feel part and included in the church's ministry. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[and to receive Holy Communion in controvention of law? We just ask the question] </strong></span>As the Catholic bishops of the United States have said again and again, gay and lesbian Catholics must be included and it has to mean an explicit outreach, such as this one, that MAGiS is willing to sponsor. I hope it was a mistake because if it wasn't a mistake, it's just homophobic, and that would be unfortunate if the organisers of World Youth Day are homophobic, that's a great pity.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: At an event like this drawing on people from all over the world, you would presumably be expecting all sorts of different cultural attitudes towards sexuality.<br /><br />Donald Godfrey: There are huge differences, culturally and within the church just as there are in society. As I arrived at the MAGiS in Riverview, I met a young Malaysian man who I told him I was from San Francisco and of course San Francisco is well-known for a large gay community, and he said, 'Oh, it's such a pity that California has recognised gay marriages; it's such a pity that gays have such a strong role in California.' <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Backward Malaysian, tut tut] </strong></span>And I didn't know what to say to him because at least at the University of San Francisco, which is Jesuit Catholic University <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Ah, there's the other Catholic church, the Jesuit one] </strong></span>where I live and work, the issue of sexual orientation <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[this old sleigh of hand, no one has issues or orientation, but of practice]</strong></span> is one of acceptance. People are just accepted for who they are, and that's the culture we live in. There's a policy of non-discrimination and many openly gay and lesbian people are hired, some are Catholics, some aren't.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: I guess it must be very difficult, Donald, to hold any kind of conversation about sexuality with young Catholics when the church knows that by and large, certainly in a country like Australia, they don't share he basic principles on which official Catholic teaching is based, namely that all sex should take place inside marriage and it should always be open to procreation. I guess it must even be more difficult for someone like you who's trying to mount a more nuanced conversation. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[ah, "distorted", not nuanced...]</strong></span><br /><br />Donald Godfrey: I think it's a bigger issue, even on this issue, I think there are issues of power <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[Bingo. Everything is power, everything is politics] </strong></span>and issues of sexuality that we need to explore and sometimes are frightened of exploring, because I think the fear might be if we explore this, where does it end? <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[At the right answer?]</span></strong><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Father Donald Godfrey, SJ.<a name="anchor5"></a>Well the President of P Flag, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, is Judy Brown. She's a Catholic parent and she's worried that the church is actively driving people away.<br /><br />Judy Brown: A couple of weeks go the Australian Bishops Conference had sent out a pastoral letter to all the parishes, and in our particular parish, I happened to be chatting to our parish priest because he had advertised the Sexuality Forum that we had planned, and I had to go and tell him that unfortunately it had been cancelled.<br /><br />Noel Debien: So your parish priest was actually advertising it?<br /><br />Judy Brown: Yes, he said he had no problem with it at all. He felt it wasn't against church teaching at all, and he was happy for it to go into the Bulletin and also up on the notice board. So when I alerted him to the fact that it had been cancelled, he mentioned to me that he'd received this pastoral letter and that he was to talk about it in his sermon that weekend. But he said actually he was having a lot of trouble with it, because in the pastoral letter it asks Are we a welcoming church? And when he looked at the institutionalised church, he said he felt that it didn't appear to be welcoming, that it wasn't welcoming to the gay and lesbian community, and it wasn't welcoming to the divorced and re-married people. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[Let's see how welcoming this lot are to Traditionists Catholics, who wish to worship using the ancient Latin Rite of the church. "Welcoming"]</span></strong><br /><br />Noel Debien: You're the President of P Flag, which is Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and you're also a practicing Catholic.<strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"> [interesting question: is Paul Collins asked if he is a "practicsing Catholic"?]</span></strong><br /><br />Judy Brown: Yes, that's right.<br /><br />Noel Debien: What were you hoping this forum would do? What was it meant to do?<br />Judy Brown: We were hoping for it to open dialogue between the Catholic church and the gay and lesbian Catholic people in Sydney and also to provide support to any young gay and lesbian transgender people that might be coming here from either overseas or from the country, or maybe even siblings, or family of gay and lesbian Catholics. The forum was presenting a dramatization of a young gay person coming out to his family, a Catholic family.<br /><br />Noel Debien: The playwright is actually a young gay man himself.<br /><br />Judy Brown: Yes, he's actually a young gay man himself, a Catholic, who was brought up in the Catholic faith and went to a Catholic high school. So that was going to be part of the forum that actually depicted a P Flag meeting and his parents' journey to accepting him. It was to present a parent couple who are very involved in their Catholic church. They were going to speak about their experience of having two gay sons in their family. There was to be a young youth worker from a gay and lesbian youth support group.<br /><br />Noel Debien: This is 20-10, the youth refuge where some gay and lesbian kids who get kicked out of home actually find a place to stay.<br /><br />Judy Brown: That's right.<br /><br />Noel Debien: When you heard that this was going to be banned from the church, what was your own reaction?<br /><br />Judy Brown: Well I felt hurt for our gay and lesbians, sons and daughters, because not just in my own experience, but I've now been involved with P Flag for nine years, and we monitor an information line, and we also take emails through our website. And we get many emails and phone calls that come from Catholic people. Most of our emails would come from committed Christians <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[is that the equivalent of a practising Catholic?]</strong></span> at least, and a lot are Catholic. A lot of them have a lot of problems with coping with their sons or daughters being gay. I don't know what that says about the Catholic church <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[so, what's the point then?] </strong></span>but we seem to be the ones that have more problems than others. Most of our children have been very involved in the Catholic church, most of them have been altar servers, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[oh, don't say that!] </strong></span>they've been conveners of youth groups in their parishes, they've been involved in other charitable arms of the church. There have been people that have perhaps sung in the choir, they've been very involved in their parishes. But once they actually come out and declare that they're gay, they feel that they're no longer welcome. Many of the parishes are very welcoming I must say, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[but you didn't say that] </strong></span>but as far as the church as an institution goes, the young people do not feel welcome.<br />In this letter that was brought out by the Australian Bishops' Conference, they mention that the church is impoverished by the fact that they've lost so many of their church community, and I feel if they were to embrace these young people, they can bring so much to the church. I think if Cardinal Pell just opened up some dialogue with these young gay Catholics, I think he'd be surprised about what they could offer the church.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: The President of P Flag, Judy Brown speaking to Noel Debien, and ending our magical mystery tour of World youth Day. And the Acceptance/PFlag event is still going ahead at the University of Technology in Sydney next Wednesday evening. Details on our website.<br /><br />Thanks this week to producers Noel Debien (who I think is pretty good in a choir) and John Diamond. I'm Stephen Crittenden.The Crittenden Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09939031370247731052noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5860885878242248375.post-19532455243732881562008-06-17T22:45:00.000-07:002008-06-17T23:38:07.157-07:00"Catholic Women Priests" - an oxymoron in a make-believe world. But don't let that stop you...<div>Well last week we brought you the first women bishops of the Anglican church in Australia, and just as Kay Goldsworthy and Barbara Darling were being consecrated, the Vatican issued a decree stating that Catholic women who were ordained as priests will now incur automatic excommunication. It isn't clear just why this memorandum appeared when it did. <strong><font color="#ff0000">[Shock horror, perhaps the Vatican actually wanted people to read it, Crittenden] </font></strong></div>
<br /><div><br />There have been Catholic women validly ordained as priests in the past. <font color="#ff0000"><strong>[Yep, he did say that, he did. We have to admit our ignorance as to this. If any readers can shed light on this, we would be fascinated. Knowing Crittenden's approach to things, we can bet London to a brick it is almost certainly incorrect. But we are happy to be prooven wrong]</strong></font> That was in Communist Czecholsovakia during an emergency,<font color="#ff0000"><strong> [I wonder what Crittenden says when Archbp Lefevre consecrated bishops against the express wishes of the Vatican because of a case of "necessity"] </strong></font> and after the emergency was over they were stood down. Other than that, wherever Catholic bishops have ordained women, those women always have been excommunicated.</div>
<br /><div><br />We're joined now by Marilyn Hatton of OCW, leader of the movement for the Ordination of Catholic Women, here in Australia.<font color="#ff0000"><strong> [What, pray, is she going to tell us that we can't already guess?]</strong></font></div>
<br /><div> </div>
<br /><div>Marilyn, this document appears to have come out of nowhere; what's behind the timing do you think?</div>
<br /><div><br />Marilyn Hatton: Well the timing I think is really it seems to me that they're a bit threatened, and they're a bit concerned that some of the bishops will actually start ordaining women. <font color="#ff0000"><strong>[Please, we're all quaking in our boots...]</strong></font></div>
<br /><div><br />Stephen Crittenden: May not hold the line.</div>
<br /><div>Marilyn Hatton: May not hold the line.</div>
<br /><div>Stephen Crittenden: Is there any evidence at all that that's happening?</div>
<br /><div><br />Marilyn Hatton: There certainly is. Within Australia there is. There's half a dozen bishops that are certainly respectful of the position of ordaining women and we sent out our recent paper on the Ordination of Catholic Women, and we got responses from about eight of the bishops, and they were quite respectful responses. And some of them were saying that they agreed with all of that, but their hands were tied. <font color="#ff0000"><strong>[Perhaps they can go public, so they can be sacked?]</strong></font></div>
<br /><div><br />Stephen Crittenden: Your movement put out a statement in response to this memo from Rome, really addressed to the Australian Bishops; what are you saying to them?</div>
<br /><div><br />Marilyn Hatton: Well we're saying to them please don't be fearful that if you all stood up and were counted on this issue and can any of those bishops stand before their God and say 'We think it just to continue at least some discussion of this', in light of the fact that the main issue is passing on the faith, and our organisation was founded about 15 years ago and its focuses were entirely with the ordination of Catholic women, but in the recent years, there's some urgency to look beyond that and say we should all be concerned about passing on the faith <font color="#ff0000"><strong>[which faith would that be, by the way? Not the Catholic sort] </strong></font>to future generations. And when the institutional church <font color="#ff0000"><strong>[By "institutional Church" you mean the Church Christ founded, don't you...]</strong></font> is actually alienating the parents who are very responsible for imbuing and passing on the faith. We run a big risk particularly with all the emerging church movements, of losing an enormous percentage of the population. <font color="#ff0000"><strong>[Well people pushing your brand of Roman Protestantism have done a remarkably good job at destroying the Catholic faith over the last 40, so why not finish it off]</strong></font></div>
<br /><div><br />Stephen Crittenden: Let's just talk about the situation of Catholic ordained women <strong><font color="#ff0000">[Yes, according to Crittenden, such a thing exists] </font></strong>like there is such in practice overseas. Because I really understand Marilyn, that there are a number of Catholic women priests who've been ordained, they've paid the price, they've been excommunicated <font color="#ff0000"><strong>[whoa there, young fella, there's no such thing...has that escaped you?]</strong></font> but they go on ministering in some countries - tell us about that.</div>
<br /><div><br />Marilyn Hatton: Those women ministers are women that you would be very respectful of. They've all had quite a deal of formation training, they all have degrees in theology and some philosophy. [<font color="#ff0000"><strong>Fine, but they are not priests, because they can't be. Duh! </strong></font>]</div>
<br /><div><br />Stephen Crittenden: I think some of the German women are quite serious theologians aren't they? <font color="#ff0000"><strong>[And?]</strong></font></div>
<br /><div><br />Marilyn Hatton: That's right and in Germany they have quite a large formation program for women priests. I think they have 120 women who have undertaken formation training and are ready to be ordained. <strong><font color="#ff0000">[Not as Catholic, though]</font></strong></div>
<br /><div><br />Stephen Crittenden: So are we seeing the very first steps towards change of view on the ground? Are people just ignoring Rome or do these women find it pretty hard going? Have they got big congregations or small?</div>
<br /><div><br />Marilyn Hatton: My understanding is that in America and Germany, there's quite large congregations of men and women who are progressive thinkers and who are wanting a God of love and respect and a practice of that in their lives.</div>
<br /><div><br />Stephen Crittenden: And just paying no attention to Rome's excommunications?</div>
<br /><div><br />Marilyn Hatton: That's it exactly. <font color="#ff0000"><strong>[Yes, that's it exactly. They make their own church, their own ministers, their own priests. Which is all fine. But, dont, please, don't call it the Catholic Faith they are preaching]</strong></font></div>
<br /><div><br />Stephen Crittenden: Marilyn Hatton, of OCW, Ordination of Catholic Women.</div>
<br /><div><br />Well that's all this week, thanks to Noel Debien and Charllie McKune. Goodbye from Stephen Crittenden.</div>The Crittenden Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09939031370247731052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5860885878242248375.post-6582983241424703092008-06-10T01:09:00.000-07:002008-06-10T01:11:12.648-07:00SilenceUnfortunately, recent illness and other things have conspired against a regular post. We hope to be back in good form soon.<br /><br />Noteable that Crittenden has had some shockingly bad (or was that, good) programs of late.<br /><br />Plus ca change...The Crittenden Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09939031370247731052noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5860885878242248375.post-85851149030712966092008-03-14T21:03:00.000-07:002008-03-14T21:24:21.514-07:00Crittenden…so THAT’s were you're coming from...The program on Wednesday 12 March contained a sad note as it included a tribute by Mr Crittenden to his “...dear friend and mentor for more than 20 years, John Russell, who died suddenly in hospital last week.”<br /><div align="center"><br />Requiem aeternam<br />Dona ei Domine<br />et lux perpetua luceat ei.<br />Requiescat in pace. Amen</div><div align="left"><br />We were particularly interested in the insight in gave into Mr Crittenden’s own viewpoint. A viewpoint he seems to wear on his sleeve during his interviews and introductions. </div><div align="left"></div><div align="left">Let’s look at the remainder of that piece (our emphases): </div><div align="left"></div><blockquote><div align="left"></div></blockquote><blockquote>John Russell joined the ABC as a Current Affairs reporter in 1970 and left after<br />several years to do other things. I met him when I went to work at the New<br />South Wales Cabinet office in the mid-1980s. He was a man of extraordinary<br />erudition, generosity and wit, a former Franciscan seminarian with a vast<br />circle of friends, who promoted <span style="color:#000000;"><strong>a sympathetic, enlightened life-affirming kind of Catholicism</strong>.<br /></span><br />In retirement John returned to journalism and broadcasting with a string of wonderful programs for the ABC Religion department and articles that were<br />amongst the best things to appear in Quadrant Magazine in recent years.<br /><br />Making a radio program involves conversations and collaborations with all kinds of people, both on-mic and off-mic. Of course most of all it's an ongoing conversation with you, dear listener. But in a very special way over these past few years, <strong><span style="color:#000000;">with his daily phone calls and his constant stream of books and ideas, for me, The Religion Report has often seemed like one long public conversation with him.<br /></span></strong><br />I think I only ever interviewed John once. He loved Germany, and in 2002 he<br />described his last visit to the East German town of Bautzen, where he had<br />wonderful friends.<br /><br />John Russell: Bautzen in the old times of the GDR, was a word that sent fear and loathing through the souls of all Germans, not just in the East but also in the West, because it was the place where the Stasi maintained its two prisons, and in fact one of those prisons has been closed and is now a museum, and to walk through the Stasi prison, which of course also before the Second World War a Gestapo prison, and see the way people were treated is a spiritual experience in itself.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Bautzen's got a stunning, stunning, East Saxony kind of church, very light and airy, very beautiful.<br /><br />John Russell: Bautzen has the most incredible 'Dom' as they call it, that I have seen, because it dates back to 1200. It had a new roof and ceiling installed in the 1600s, but it's divided in half between Catholics and Protestants and has been divided since the Reformation. The Lutheran half is at the back, you come in the back door, you walk up the aisle, there's a little picket fence, there's a Lutheran altar and a pulpit, and then you go over the picket fence and there's the Catholic half, with an altar and<br />pulpit, and of course it being Germany, both halves have wonderful organs. And<br />it's a stunning building, and people who visit that area of Germany should make<br />some effort to see it. It is incredible. To my knowledge it's the only shared church in Germany, it certainly was the only shared church in the old East Germany.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: And presumably these days both sides get on pretty well in the ecumenical environment?<br /><br />John Russell: I understand both sides have always got on. There was a contract made in the late 1500s between the Catholics and the Protestants about the times of services, and that contract is still in force. Saxony is a very interesting place. Saxony,<br />Luther was a Saxon, Wittenberg is in Saxony, but Saxony always maintained some<br />degree of peace between the two groups, the Catholics and the Protestants. The<br />Thirty Years' War came, all sorts of problems came, they tended to come from<br />outside, and this was an area hidden to the world during the GDR years. It's an<br />area very few people know much about and it's an area worth seeing. <span style="color:#000000;"><strong>The<br />churches, Catholic, Protestant, whatever you like are stunning, many were untouched by the Second World War, but I think we have a lot to learn from people in those areas. I met a wonderful Lutheran pastor who was 89, and he was the former Superintending Pastor for the area of Bautzen.</strong> </span>He spoke perfect English, he'd learnt it in school, and he told me that during the Communist years, none of his children had been allowed to go to high school. The children of pastors couldn't go to high school, so they had to be taught at home and pick up what education they could along the way.<br /><br />But I asked him how the Communist years were for the church, and he said, 'They were wonderful years for the church'.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Why?<br /><br />John Russell: Because they bought the church, the Catholic church and the Protestant <strong><span style="color:#000000;">church back to essentials.</span></strong> They <strong>took away the flummery at the top</strong> and made people look inside and look about what it was all about and where they were going. Some of us in the West have not had that opportunity, thank God, but those in the East who've had it, have, it seems, benefited by it.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: John Russell, who died in Sydney last week.</blockquote><p>Dear Listener, a “sympathetic, enlightened life-affirming kind of Catholicism”?? A church brought back to “essentials”?? We all know what these are code for don’t we.<br /><br />The line Mr Crittenden and his guests seem to repeatedly push is just this: the Catholic Church has lost the Faith (and is probably the Whore of Babylon too, who knows). Benedict XVI and any orthodox Catholic misrepresent and distort true catholick faith, suffering from the accretions of the decadence of mediaeval times and renaissance Rome. They stand for hatred, bigotry and intolerance. And Benedict XVI is at their head.<br /><br />Oh how tawdry and passé.<br /><br />May these people reflect sincerely on the facts, the writings and the thoughts of, for one, Pope Benedict, especially in the Holy Father’s first encyclical <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html">Deus Caritas Est</a>, along with most of his daily output (eg on the <a href="http://www.zenit.org/index.php?l=english">Zenit </a>news site).</p><blockquote><p></p></blockquote>The Crittenden Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09939031370247731052noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5860885878242248375.post-57822825221253442172008-03-13T22:17:00.000-07:002008-03-13T22:42:37.431-07:00Gregorian Chant? Beautiful, Great, Awesome, Popular…just banned by Catholic priests that's all.In this week’s Religion Report, Stephen Crittenden tangentially covered one of the abiding ironies (disgraces?) of the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Coucil: the virtual suppression and destruction of Gregorian Chant in the life of the Church especially at the parish level.<br /><br />Crittenden discussing the apparent anomaly of an old Italian manuscript of Gregorian Chant being held in the State Library of New South Wales’ collection. And Crittenden did so in very respectful tones. A recognition of a great artform, no less. <br /><br />The twist is, that the manuscript has been <strong>“brought to life” through a series of secular concerts so popular, that more are having to be scheduled.</strong><br /><br />“This is not surprising”, might you say, Dear Listener. “It’s great music and a great artform, what’s the issue”. Hasn’t every Pope and Congregation responsible for the Liturgy and Sacraments exalted Gregorian as a priceless treasure?<br /><br />Well, yes. <br /><br />But these days the only place you are likely to hear any Gregorian Chant is in a concert hall or some Anglican churches. <br /><br /><strong>Thing is, the majority of Catholic bishops, priests and Liturgy Committees, have in a practical sense FORBIDDEN the use of Gregorian Chant in church. The tawdry tale is repeated in parish after parish all over the Catholic world.</strong> In the Catholic world, you’ll find Gregorian Chant at the Vatican and in some of the more important churches and Catholic Cathedrals, but only where the Archbishop or Dean has orthodoxy and taste to boot.<br /><br />Driven by the egregious modernistic tendencies that seem to interpret the Second Vatican Council as establishing almost a new church that ditches everything that came before, those people revile Gregorian Chant (and its language of Latin). They are things to be shunned and expunged from all use in the liturgical life of the Church because it is foreign to the modern mentality, stands for another faith. And are just a bit too-Catholic. We don’t do that here. We won’t even raise the issue of the complete drivel that has replaced it.<br /><br />These views have been driven by the - at best - neglect - or more likely, deliberate program to destroy – this destroy this great art form and its accompanying language that both the Second Vatican Council and every Pope and Congregation responsible for the liturgy has exalted as a priceless treasure.<br /><br />Not that Crittenden would tell you this of course, because to do that would actually give you a window on the authentic role and power of the Greogorian chant in authentic Catholic worship AND Greogorian Chant is, of course, most readily associated with…THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS and there is no way that there should be an publicity for the riches of that, should there dear Listener (cf Crittenden’s contemptuous tones on the liberalisation of the Traditional Latin Mass).<br /><br />For the record, and before we look at the interview, let’s see what the Second Vatican Council really thought about Latin and Gregorian Chant. From its <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html">Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium)</a>:<br /><br />“116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as <strong>specially suited </strong>to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, <strong>it should be given pride of place in liturgical services</strong>.”<br /><br />And, what about Latin?<br /><br />36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, <strong>the use of the Latin language <strong><em>is to be preserved </em></strong>in the Latin rites</strong>.<br /><br />Yep. That’s right.<br /><br />Hang on, Vatican II didn’t abolish Latin and the Gregorian Chant? <br /><br />Nup, Dear Listener, on the contrary: when the Fathers of Vatican II voted for the Constitution on the Sacred Litrugy, they sought to ensure that what was promoted was the congregation's authentic (not superficial) involvement in the prayer of the Church - their prayer - and the Mass, to encourage their profound prayerful "interior" participation and thereby to encourage their authentic understanding of the Mass, so they could derive the maximum fruits from it. They also wanted the congregation to play the role proper (ie special) to them in the appropriate external by singing their chants and praying the Mass with the Priest. When it comes to singing, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy said:<br /><br />“54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.<br /><br /><strong>Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them</strong>.”<br /><br />In your ordinary Catholic parish this does not happen. Why? The reasons you’ll hear are:<br /><br />1. we don’t do that any more / we don't believe that any more<br />2. Vatican II abolished all that old stuff<br />3. we don’t do that in Australia<br />4. the people don’t understand<br />5. the people don’t sing<br />6. the people can’t sing<br />7. we don’t have the resources<br />8. no one knows Gregorian Chant<br /><br />In other words, everything is being done on the practical level to ignore official directives and the Church’s tradition and timeless heritage, which belongs to ordinary Catholics in the pews as much as to anyone else. <br /><br />Were this a question of taste, we would call it the appalling lack of taste.<br /><br />But it's much more important than that. It has the effect of killing Latin and Gregorian Chant, depriving Catholics of their birthright and heritage and giving the ordinary Catholic the misleading impression that we just don’t do that any more.<br /><br />Wethinks what is really happening is the individuals (Bishops, Priest, Laity, Liturgical Committees, Liturgical Commisions etc) involved either:<br /><br />1. have no idea about what Vatican II said; or<br /><br />2. don’t want to know about what Vatican II said; or<br /><br />3. have an ideological position that they refuse to do what Vatican II (and every Pope since, including Pope Paul VI) said; or<br /><br />4. will use every excuse in the book to keep the people in the dark, and finally kill off Latin and Gregorian Chant for good, given the evil these modernists perceive Latin and Gregorian Chant represent: Catholic faith and tradition. <br /><br />“We don’t do that here”.<br /><br />Let’s look at the interview:<br /><br /><blockquote>CHANTING<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Well that's Gregorian Chant from a manuscript that's thought to be one of the oldest European manuscripts in Australia, the Rimini Antiphonal of 1328. It's owned by the State Library of New South Wales, which has had the bright idea of not only giving the public a rare opportunity to see this beautiful illuminated manuscript in an exhibition, but giving the music its first Australian performance. So far there have been two sold-out concerts in the vestibule of the State Library, and we're told that demand is such that there'll be at least one more, possibly two.<br /><br />The music archivist of the State Library of New South Wales is Meredith Lawn, and she's here in the studio with Dr Neil McEwan who lectures at the Conservatorium of Music and conducts the concerts. Meredith, a Franciscan manuscript from Rimini; describe it to us.<br /><br />Meredith Lawn: Well it's an antiphonal and it contains music for the commons of the saints, which are Gregorian chants used in the service of the office. What it looks like, it's covered in hard oak wooden boards, and inside the pages are vellum. There are 155 folios which in today's pagination would be 310 pages because they're front and back. The music on the page is in the old style of notation, square black notes on four red lines, and we have illuminations on some of the pages, the most beautiful, brightly coloured illuminations with gold leaf, and they're by an artist called Neri Da Rimini.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Right. So this is not an anonymous manuscript, it's somebody we know.<br /><br />Meredith Lawn: The artist has been identified. We even know the scribe who did the music and the text, and that was someone called Bonfontino da Bologna, but in the 16th century the manuscript was revised on some pages by an unknown scribe who actually scraped away some of the old notes and text, and wrote over the top of them, sometimes even pasting a piece of paper over the old text.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: And 1328 by this time I guess in the history of music, <em>we're into some quite spectacular polyphony starting to emerge</em>.<br /><br />Neil McEwan: By a longshot, yes.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: By a longshot, but this is not polyphony this is pure, monophonic chant, isn't it?<br /><br />Neil McEwan: It is, yes. It's just one line, could be sung by a soloist but I would suggest it would be sung by a schola of, you know, a number of people.<br /><br />Meredith Lawn: I just think it's interesting to comment on the contents of the antiphonal for the different groups of saints. It doesn't come with a table of contents, but we could say that we start of with chants for the apostles. And then we have martyrs, several martyrs, and then we have confessors who were bishops, confessors who were not bishops, and it gets quite specific. Then we have virgins, virgins non-martyrs, non-virgins non-martyrs, and then it goes into the office for the dedication of the church and the office of the dead.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: They loved classification, those people, didn't they? Meredith what can you tell us about the provenance of the book? Who owned it and how did the Library come to acquire it?<br /><br />Meredith Lawn: Yes, a lot of people are surprised that this mediaeval Italian manuscript could end up in the State Library of New South Wales, but we received in 1928. It was a bequest from an English gentleman called Nelson Moore Richardson, and it was part of a collection of 300 rare early English bibles. But why did this Englishman choose to send them to Australia? Well, I've looked back through the correspondence files, and in a letter that Richardson wrote in 1917, he explains that there was an Australian army camp based on his land in Dorset, and he got to know the Australians that were passing through that camp. Many of them had actually been at Gallipoli, and this was a convalescent camp. So he writes in his letter:<br /><br />'It occurred to us that it would show in a small way our appreciation of the Australians and of the noble way in which they have come forward to help us in this war, and of all the sacrifices they have made. If we were to arrange that these Bibles should eventually find a home in Australia.'<br /><br />Now apparently Richardson was not sure whether they should go to Sydney or Melbourne, but the Chaplain at the Australian army camp, Reginald Pitt-Owen, he was from Sydney and he suggested Sydney, of course, so that's how they eventually came to us.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Neil, <strong>there's been surprising public interest in the concerts around this exhibition. There have been two sold-out concerts so far, I understand public demand is so big in Sydney that you're planning a third and perhaps even a fourth concert</strong>?<br /><br />Neil McEwan: That's correct.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: <strong>What's behind this level of interest, do you think</strong>?<br /><br />Neil McEwan: <strong>Well I think that in much of what we do in life, everything's geared towards the future and the present, but within all of us there's a sense of wanting to know about mediaevalism. Gregorian chant seems to capture the imagination of people who don't know anything about it, and you'll remember some years ago where it hit the top of the hit parades in England.</strong><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: The monks in Montserrat in Spain.<br /><br />Neil McEwan: That's right.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Is it a straightforward matter to perform the music, or is that a matter of detailed reconstruction?<br /><br />Neil McEwan: Well we're actually singing exactly what's on the page, in terms of notes. But by the time of the Rimini manuscript, practically all the semeology - that means the musicality and the expressive musical side of singing chant - had practically disappeared, because we got four lines and we can read the music. But I went back to the 10th century when those four lines of pitches hadn't been invented, and I crossed many of the manuscripts, but the important manuscripts of the 10th century are this proliferation of signs which tell us how to sing the chant, and that was just recently discovered by a Solesmes monk who published a book in 1979. But what's important is that I transcribed the 10th century nuances onto the manuscript which would give us pretty close to maybe what a performance practice was like, singing from the Rimini. But how they actually sang it and what the sound was like I have no idea. But I think we might be, well, pretty close.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Dr Neil McEwan of the New South Wales Conservatorium, and Meredith Lawn, of the State Library of New South Wales. There'll be one more concert in the coming weeks, perhaps two, and if you're interested in going you'll need to register your interest on the State Library's website. Details are on our website.</blockquote><br /><br /><br />We think the good Dr McEwan is being a little reductionist with the emphasis on mediaevalism. Sure, that might be right in the secular sphere, but in the Catholic Church it's more an integral part of the Catholic Liturgy, and how beauty evangelises.The Crittenden Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09939031370247731052noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5860885878242248375.post-40485123393779794922008-03-10T20:39:00.001-07:002008-03-10T20:39:40.263-07:00How he stirs the pot II<div>In our second piece, we look at <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2171955.htm">the Religion Report Program from two Wednesday's ago</a> (that preceeded our first posting below).</div>
<br /><div> </div>
<br /><div>Stephen Crittenden got the...sorry...got <strong>a </strong>"Catholic view" of the issue of the change by Pope Benedict XVI of the Good Friday prayers for the conversion of the Jews in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite of the Mass.
<br />
<br />So that we know who the interlocutor is, he is one Father John Pawlikowsky, whom Crittenden describes as "one of the most senior figures in the church, involved in dialogue with the Jews. In fact he's the international President of the Council of Christians and Jews". Okay, so we have a pretty good idea of where this is likely to take us, don't we...let's see:
<br />
<br />
<br />Well you may remember the debate in the Catholic church last year when Pope Benedict <strong>reintroduced</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[Wrong. See our comments on the last post. "Liberated" / "confirmed the non-abolition of" would be more accurate. Or, to use the words of the Holy Father from the <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html">Apostolic Letter to the Bishops</a>: <em>"I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted."</em> ] </font>the <strong>old</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[note the common implication of the Modernist (i.e. Regressivist) mentality...anythiny OLD is BAD, anything NEW is GOOD] </font>pre-Vatican II Latin missal <font color="#ff0000">[Presumably, Crittenden doesn't know - why doesn't he know?? - that all the official text of the Missal is in Latin because that's the normative language of the liturgy!] </font>of 1962 in an effort to build bridges with <strong>Catholic traditionalists</strong>. <font color="#ff0000">[It's not entirely clear from the text, but if the implication here is that this is <strong>solely </strong>a sop to the Society of St Pius X (who, presumably are the "traditionalists" he refers to, given that the only traditionists really in existence are at the <strong>fringes</strong> of the church not in the <strong>heart </strong>of the Church...), then that's wrong too. More on that later. At this point the Pope's words are interesting: </font><font color="#ff0000"><em>"We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church." </em>Sounds like the Pope things there are traditionalists in the heart of the Church, too and, wethinks, he ought to know<em>]</em></font></div>
<br /><div><font color="#ff0000"><em></em></font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />Critics were quick to point out that the old rite contained <strong>at least</strong> one prayer <font color="#ff0000">[To our knowledge there is only one prayer (consisting of two parts) that is in issue. Is it possible that Crittenden is reverencing somethingelse (eg the Office)?] </font>, a Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews, that used language which <strong>was really no longer acceptable</strong>. <font color="#ff0000">[Note how Crittenden simply imposes a judgment: of course, it's no longer acceptable because the views of the anti-Catholic within and outside the Catholic church deem it to be so, and this uncritical, irrational position, should and will be accepted by you, Dear Listener, because Crittenden saith it is so] </font>This is it. <font color="#ff0000">[Gird your loins, Listeners...]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />'Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the <strong>veil from their hearts</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[Fr Z in the post below, reminds us that this is a direct biblical allusion. Not that Crittenden would INFORM you of that, of course.] </font>and that they also <strong>may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ</strong>. <font color="#ff0000">[would have thought that's fair enough] </font>Almighty and everlasting God, you do not refuse your mercy <strong>even</strong> to the Jews <font color="#ff0000">[Clearly the "even" gets the Modernist's goat: it's better translated into English as "also"]</font>. Hear the prayers which we offer for the <strong>blindness of that people</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[a</font><font color="#ff0000"> further direct biblical allusion. Not that Crittenden would INFORM you of that, of course.</font>], so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth.' </div>
<br /><div>
<br />Well <strong>that kind</strong> of language <strong>went out with</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[Crittenden's contempt is obvious, no?] </font>the Second Vatican Council's declaration on the church's relation with non-Christians, called Nostrae Aetate. Mainstream Catholics <font color="#ff0000">[Behold, the men and women of straw have arrived. Those nasty traditionists couldn't possibily be <font color="#ff0000">"</font><strong>Mainstream Catholics"</strong> , could they dear Listener. No they do weird things like actually believe that the consecrated bread and wine are actually the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Shameful] </font><strong>these da</strong>ys <font color="#ff0000">[As opposed to the "Mainstream Catholics" of 1963 and any before who clearly had the wrong end of the stick] </font>say a completely <font color="#000000"><strong>different</strong></font> prayer for the Jews on Good Friday that makes no mention of conversion. <font color="#ff0000">[Right, so Crittenden wants you to believe that Catholics no longer prayer for conversion in the Novus Ordo, the New Order of Mass. The prayer is:
<br />
<br />"Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption."
<br />
<br />So, it's clear to anyone who stops for a second that the prayer in the Novus Ordo is phrased in language that is seen as the diplomatic and open-ended. But, deliciously vague and open to interpretations that fudge the issue. You could argue with some validity: "No, Catholics don't pray for conversion" and much as you could that "Yes, Catholics still pray for conversion of the Jews." Except of course, the Pope reckons we still do. Catholics believe the "fullness of redemption" is Christ. Therefore Catholics pray that God will bring Jews to recognise Christ; how and when, Catholics don't presume to know. What Catholics do NOT do is force Christ upon anyone. That's not what Catholics understand Faith to be. Not that Crittenden would INFORM you of that.]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />Well now Pope Benedict has dumped <font color="#ff0000">["dumped", Listener] </font>the prayer from the old Latin rite and written a third prayer, minus the offensive <font color="#ff0000">[yep, offensive. Bear in mind what Rabbi Rosen said about that in last week's blog entry: that it's not offensive, properly understood]</font> language, but the language of conversion <strong>is back</strong>. <font color="#ff0000">[Oh, dear. Where did it go in the first place?] </font>Now this may <strong>seem like</strong> a tiny technical matter,<font color="#ff0000"> [yeah, right. Is this bloke the full quid?] </font> only of interest to <strong>a few diehards </strong><font color="#ff0000">[So, the vast majority of Catholics in communion with the Pope and faithful to the 2000 tradition of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, are "a few diehards" in Crittenden's view, with all the negative connotations that accompany that word. Whereas the "liberal" Catholics are okay, because, well, they're aren't TOO Catholic. And being TOO Catholic, is a problem for everyone else] </font>who want to <strong>hang on to the Latin. </strong><font color="#ff0000">[Crittenden wears his ignorance and idiocy on his sleeve] </font>But it also opens an extremely interesting theological can of worms. </div>
<br /><div>
<br />Father John Pawlikowsky is one of the most senior figures in the church, involved <font color="#ff0000">[We imagine the transcript inserts this comma where it don't belong] </font> in dialogue with the Jews. In fact he's the international President of the Council of Christians and Jews. He says the way the Pope has addressed the Jewish prayer is quite inadequate.<font color="#ff0000"> /font> </div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: With some serious reflection, it could have been handled far better because any number of Jewish and Christian groups and inter-religious groups wrote to the Vatican well in advance, and there were also cardinals and bishops who wrote saying there was a problem here that needs addressing, if you're going to restore the prayers of the '62 missal. <font color="#ff0000">[So, even the Catholics are mis-representing the liberalisation of the 1962 missal, so what credibility should we attribute to the Rev Fr Pawlikowsky have on issues of the Ancient Rite of Mass? Evidently he knows something about relations with the Jewish Faith, but does he know diddly squat about the Extraordinary Form of the Mass? Let's see] </font>And unfortunately he was very late in the game when they even began to take serious notice of the concerns. </div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: Is the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the old Latin rite from 1962, just one small sign of what was wrong with the old rite, <font color="#ff0000">[And, dear Crittenden, what were the others? That it isn't Protestant enough? That it is too Catholic because it very clearly reflects a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?] </font>and why it needed to be reformed? Does the Jewish prayer reflect in fact, <strong>a mentality</strong> that's characteristic of the whole rite? <font color="#ff0000">[After much deliberation, we think Crittenden is trying to say that the Extraordinary Form is inherently offensive to the Jews, and - because he only wants to hint at it, without saying the A-word - is, in some fashion Antisemitic; is that it? Is that what he's saying?? If so, say so, in order that we know precisely where you stand]</font></div><font color="#ff0000"></font>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Well it certainly reflects <strong>a theological position</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[The Rev Fr isn't going to be so ballsy is he?] </font>with respect to the Jews and also I would say to other Christians and to people of other faith traditions, including Muslims and so on. </font></div><font color="#ff0000"></font>[If Rev Fr means that Catholics would only prayer for others conversion, then he is being misleading. Catholics pray for their own conversion first and foremost.</div><font color="#ff0000"></font>] There is a significant theological difference between the theological approach of the old rite over against the '70 missal. <font color="#ff0000">[Yep: the Tradtional Form is Catholic and the English translation of the 1970 Missal is so poor and unfaithful to the official Latin version of that same Missal, that you can make a case for just about any interpretation you care to] </font>There are a number of articles in the international press by liturgists <font color="#ff0000">[D</font><font color="#ff0000">Be very wary of reading anything by a person who calls themself a "liturgist", Rev Fr, they usually have no understanding of what the Mass really is] </font>who have pointed out that you can't blend the two, they're really quite distinct, and <strong>obviously Vatican II<font color="#ff0000"> </font>saw </strong>some problem with the old one or else they wouldn't have changed it. <font color="#ff0000">[Wrong, Rev Fr. Shouldn't you point out that the Fathers of Vatican 2 did not want the Mass completely re-written; the revision of the rites that the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy talks of is much more restrictive than what actually occured when Archbishop Bugnini took a sledge hammer to the Mass. Re-writing the evolving tradition of the Mass - what Pope Benedict calls a "fabricated" liturgy - was the role assumed by the Consilium lead by the Bugnini. NOW THAT, CRITTENDEN, WOULD be a story you could break: Crittenden exposes what really happened following Vatican 2 : the Men who highjacked the </font><font color="#ff0000">Council and ensured its wishes were never implemented] They wouldn't have voted to change it if they didn't think there was some difficulty. [The misrepresentation here is astonshing: presumably the reference to people "voting", refers to the Constitution the Fathers of the Second Vatican council voted for and adopted. They also wanted Latin to be retained in the Latin Rite, Gregorian Chant to have pride of place in liturgy all other things being equal and said nothing about ripping out high altars or turning the priest to face the congregation (ie away from the East). But, hey, those kinds of facts would distroy the illusion, so let's not tell anyone about that, but keep the laity in the dark, because they don't and shouldn't read the documents of the Second Vatican Council for themselves should they]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: So what's your response then to this new prayer that the Pope has created for the <font color="#000000"><strong>updated Latin rite</strong>?</font> <font color="#ff0000">[We don't think Crittenden would get the irony of this phrase]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Well first of all, I personally can't see any need for it. We have a Latin version of the '70 prayer, it would have been the most simple thing in the world to have used that. <font color="#ff0000">[Make you're job a little easier, eh, Rev Fr? Might the Pope just see that it fudges the issue and wants to clarify it. Stay tuned, because the '70 prayer might change too, before too long. No wouldn't that throw the cat amongst the proverbial]</font> That prayer, one has to say, has <strong>a certain</strong> ambiguity <font color="#ff0000">[No, it's a "fudge", Rev Fr, a "fudge"] </font>which reflects <strong>the ambiguity </strong>of <strong>even</strong> Nostrae Aetate <font color="#ff0000">[ah, is the Rev Fr using "even" ironically here?? "even the Jews"?] </font><font color="#ff0000">[So, is the Rev Fr implying there is virtue in avoiding the issue??] </font>regarding the whole question of you put the Jewish-Christian relationship together, theologically, from a Catholic perspective, and how mission might fit into that. <font color="#ff0000">[Wethinks Rev Fr is trying to say: Catholics don't know whether they should require, seek or pray for the conversion fo the Jews. On that score, he'd be right]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: <strong>Some people might say</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[those famous weasel words] </font>that's the <strong>genius</strong> of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews in the modern rite, that it sidesteps the question so neatly. <font color="#ff0000">[And there is also an argument that the "genius" is the folly of the modern prayer. Let's see what the Rev Fr thinks?] </font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Well I think what it did was Vatican II was not in a position to solve that issue. <font color="#ff0000">[But, Father, that's not Crittenden tells us? He said V2's Nostrae Aetate changed all that old understanding and opened the doors for the modern world to come into the Catholic Church!] </font>What it did say very clearly and decisively is that the old theology was no longer acceptable. <font color="#ff0000">[If he means that an unauthentic (mis)interpretation of Catholic Theology was unacceptable, he's right, and it remains unacceptable. But it's a bit misleading to say one illinformed racist view, constitutes the "old" theology of the Church] </font>Now what kind of new formulation of the Jewish Christian relationship theologically, should replace it, is a matter I think that theologians have to work on over a number of years, and in a sense, the ambiguity of the '70 prayer, left that open as a possibility, <font color="#ff0000">[Well, a bit more than "a possiblity" Rev Fr, because most Catholics and non-Catholics seem to think that we don't pray for conversion of the Jews anymore, so the drafters of the 1970 prayer were very successful in their aim] </font>but it's a much more positive, appreciative prayer for the Jews, recognising what Nostrae Aetate did say very decisively, that Jews remain a part of the covenantal tradition. <font color="#ff0000">[Rev Fr, that's a bit simplistic ain't it. See the text of Nostrae Aetate below for yourselves] </font>This one though, the terrible language <font color="#ff0000">[Rev Fr, you should know better than this] </font>of the '62 prayer has been eliminated by the Pope and that is a step forward. Nonetheless, its whole emphasis is on conversion, and that is such a sensitive issue with Jews. <font color="#ff0000">[And here, finally, is the issue: <strong>Some </strong>Jews, don't like the fact that the Catholic Church prays for their conversion and always has, as it is has been part of Catholic faith from Apostolic times. That, of course, is not to dismisss that huge sensitivies felt by many Jews about what conversion means, and the "forced conversions" and other sordid episodes in both Church and World history that remain so clearly in Jewish memory. However, there are ways to address this, without inventing a new theology that is not what the Church has inherited.]</font>Frankly, <strong>many Jews see that as a way of ultimately killing off the Jewish community</strong>. <font color="#ff0000">[WELL, has the Rev Fr gone just a little over the edge or what?? Is the implication here that Catholics are killers of the Jews??? Or, are we not to take the REv Fr's words literally, but interpreting it to mean the Catholic Church has sought to kill Jewish faith and culture? If the former, then we suggest this Catholic who is "International President of the Council of Christians and Jews" should spend a little time disabusing such Jews of such outrageous interpretations. If he hasn't, why not?]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: Let's go back <font color="#ff0000">[No, please don't press the Rev Fr on the outrageous claim he just made, Crittenden, please don't do that] </font>to the point you just made a few moments ago, that the Pope could have used a Latin translation of the prayer that <strong>mainstream Catholics</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[again] </font>say on Good Friday in the modern rite. But he didn't do that, in the end he wrote a third prayer. It seems obvious that <strong>he was up to something</strong>; <font color="#ff0000">[Of course, Crittenden wants you to think the the Pope and leader of the Church is plotting behind the backs of the real church: ie the modernists, protestants and pseudo-Catholics who make up the real church. Oh, please, Crittenden.] </font>what do you think it was he was up to? </div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Yes, and you know, Cardinal Bertoni, the Secretary of State, towards the end of the Summer, had given <strong>us some hope</strong> <font color="#ff0000">["Us" Catholics, or "Us" with modernist agendas?] </font>that that would be the solution. That didn't happen, as you say. Look, I can't read the Pope's mind and heart, I don't know exactly what he had in mind here. <font color="#ff0000">[Right, so why speculate, then? In any case, does the Rev Fr speak to anyone in the Vatican, perchance, especially given his important position in the Church? Does he read any commentary on the issue or speak to anyone, perchance, given he is "one of the most senior figures in the church, involved in dialogue with the Jews". You get the feeling that the Council of Christians and Jews is a voluntary interest group with no official status within the Church from this commentary] </font>I think the general feeling <font color="#ff0000">[Ah yes, the General Feeling; She's a first cousin to Some People Might Say, dear Listener] </font>is that the people who are in favour of the '62 missal don't really regard the '70 missal with great admiration, and therefore simply do not want anything taken or imported from the '70 missal into the '62 missal. <font color="#ff0000">[Here the Rev Fr is partially right, but not for the reasons he thinks (or at least implies). A big issue is whether the Holy Father's decision to change the Good Friday Prayer is a good thing for what it implies about change to the venerable liturgical tradition represented in the Extraordinary Form. Commentary by bloggers on Fr Z's site for instances indicates a worry that if the Pope changes this kind of prayer, what else could be changed by Popes who are less inclined to fulsome understanding of the Church's liturgical tradition. Yes, Listeners, there are some of those too!!!] </font>Now to what extent the Pope personally shares some of those views, is anyone's guess. </div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: Are we talking about the church holding or appearing to hold, simultaneously, two incompatible theologies? <font color="#ff0000">[Ok, Crittenden, ok, you've finally asked a good question. If the answer is "yes", let's hope you go on to ask "why" and "what's really motivating this?]</font></div><font color="#ff0000"></font>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Well, that's my contention, that <strong>in a sense there's a significant difference between the theologies that under-gird the new prayer and the one that under-girds the prayer of the '70 missal</strong>. And I've said this any number of times in more dramatic ways or more sober ways, but you know, <strong>the church looks like it's speaking from the two sides of its mouth</strong>, though it's put a little more gingerly. It's <strong>speaking with two voices that are not really compatible, and therefore I think its integrity in terms of the dialogue with Jews, is compromised</strong>. <font color="#ff0000">[Okay, so the implication is also that dialogue amongst Catholics is also compromised. Does the Catholic Church believe what it always has (1962 Missal) or has there been a radical change (1970 Missal)? If the answer is yes, how did this happen, who authorised it, why are people telling us something different, and how can that position be justified?] </font>I mean the Jewish community can rightly ask, Well which of the theologies really pertains to us? <font color="#ff0000">[We dare say the Catholic community would ask the same question Rev Fr] </font>And the difficulty now is, you know many people say, Well don't worry about this because only a small number of people are going to celebrate the liturgy with the '62 missal. <font color="#ff0000">[And Rev Fr, who are saying this?] </font>That may be true in terms of numbers, but we're already seeing bloggers and so on, conservative bloggers, <font color="#ff0000">[Darn pests they are, aren't they Father, making it difficult for all the Regressivist Modernist Hippies in charge of the Church who want it stuck firmly in the 1960s] </font>saying 'Oh now see, the Pope himself has put his stamp on this theology.' Whereas the theology of the '70 missal only has the stamp of Vatican II. <font color="#ff0000">[It doesn't have even the stamp of V2, Rev Fr, you ought to know that and say so]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: And so where does that leave 40 years of Jewish-Christian dialogue? <font color="#ff0000">[That's a relevant question] </font>Where does it leave people like you? <font color="#ff0000">[That's not a relevant question]</font> </div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Well I would say confused to some extent, uncertain as to where to go. But I would say also determined to carry on. I mean, this is what we're seeing in the interchange among those of us who have been involved in dialogue for many years. There is a resilient spirit here that we will not give in easily, <font color="#ff0000">[It's an issue of power isn't it, Rev Fr. The Modernist Hippy Clergy, always conceived it thus, and they will contineu to act that way] </font>and that the vision of Vatican II <font color="#ff0000">[Oh, oh: so not only only do we have to contended with a "Spirit of Vatican II" that does not exist and isn't even in the agreed documents - what Pope Benedict calls a "hermeutic of rupture" (intepreting the Council as though it created a new Church ruptured from the 2000 year tradition of all that went before it - we have "vision of Vatican II" as well - what the duece could that mean??] </font>as expressed in Nostrae Aetate, must be continued and must be expressed, not only in theology but also in prayer. <font color="#ff0000">[We wonder if the irony hits the Rev Fr: "lex orandi, lex credendi" - the law of prayer is the law of faith - a mantra that those in favour of the traditional form of Mass like to use to say: "If we believe what we always believe, how could you deny us the form of Mass we always used"] </font>I mean our colleague, [Sr] Dr Mary Boys, made a very, very telling point which I think very much moved many in the Jewish community, that on Good Fridays should we praying for the conversion of Jews, or should we be praying for the conversion from our long history of Christian anti-Semitism. <font color="#ff0000">[Okay, see the previous post for the links to the Jewish prayers that reflect a certain Anti-Catholicism and anti-other things that haven't got a wide airing for some inexplicable reason.] </font>I mean, I think it's a good question. </div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: Yes. This is such an interesting theological grey area however. I wonder whether it was inevitable that Pope Benedict would want to resolve it. </div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Well see I don't think he has resolved it, that's the point. <font color="#ff0000">[No, he hasn't resovled it yet because the 1970 Missal and 1962 Missal still differ, but when the 1970 Missal prayer changes too, he still won't have resolved it in your mind, Rev Fr, because he hasn't said what you want him to say. That's the point, isn't it, Rev Fr]</font></div>
<br /><div><font color="#ff0000"></font>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: That's right. </div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: And he can't resolve it just by going and sitting down and writing a prayer in a couple of weeks. I mean true dialogue involves communication with people. <font color="#ff0000">[So, the Rev Fr, seriously thinks - or wants us to think - that this ultra-consultative pope who has been severely criticised for not moving quickly on anything precisly because he consults so thoroughly is actually a hermit speaking to no-one about such important issues? This beggars belief.] </font>One of the frustrating things frankly about Pope Benedict's approach to dialogue is that it's very heady, it's very theoretical, and yet the 1974 or '75 Vatican guidelines, however you name them, says among the most important points that Catholics should come to know Jews as they understand themselves. Authentic dialogue is a dialogue among people, not just the dialogue of the head, and I think it's important that the Pope comes to hear and understand how conversion, the idea of conversion and prayer for conversion, which then can inevitably lead to concrete programming for conversion, how that impacts the Jewish community that has experienced the Holocaust, that has experienced anti-Semitism and so on. I mean you want the stuff of authentic dialogue, and this is what seems to me to be missing with his approach. And I don't know, perhaps we can break through this. I mean I said back in 2001 in a talk at the University of Cambridge, that I thought that conversion was the issue that was lurking in the shadows, was hiding under the table and one day would have to be addressed in a more forthright way. <font color="#ff0000">[About this, the Rev Fr is right: Do Catholics pray for the conversion of the Jews or not? But wethinks, Rev Fr knows the answer is "yes" we do, but doesn't like the answer he's hearing] </font>Many of my own colleagues in the dialogue said "Oh no, the Catholic church has given up trying to convert Jews". <font color="#ff0000">[And, pray tell, Rev Fr, who told them that? Where did they get that impression? The usual modernist, hippy hierarchy that passes for the name the "Episcopal Conference of such and such" we suppose] </font>Well I wasn't so sure, and <strong>unfortunately</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[Right, we know we know where you stand. Can Crittenden let us hear the authentic Catholic voice please??] </font>in a way, I've been proven correct by this situation. And now it's on the table, and I don't know, we have to try to find constructive ways to deal with it. </div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: I'm sure many people would find it difficult to get their heads around the idea that Jesus didn't come to convert the Jews. <font color="#ff0000">[Applause, Crittenden, but why leave this one until last??]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Well I mean here is where you get into a very, very complex area. <font color="#ff0000">[Ah, Rev Fr, the question is not that complex really]</font> There is a whole new growing body of scholarly literature done essentially by biblical scholars, that really quite changes our understanding of how Jesus related to the Jewish community of his time. <font color="#ff0000">[So, you have in mind the Pope's dialogue with the Jews in his book on the historical Jesus, "Jesus of Nazareth"??] </font>There's an increasing number of scholars, very reputable New Testament scholars, who are saying "There is no evidence that Jesus ever intended to found a separate religious institution in his own lifetime", <font color="#ff0000">[As, we said, modernists, protestants, Christian atheists, Jews, Roman Protestants, you name them, they're there. The thing we don't get is why on earth do they continue to call themselves "Catholic". Listerners, you just heard a Catholic priest on the payroll imply that Christ did not found a separate religious institution. Why is this guy still a Cathlolic priest?] </font>and that we see now that the linkage between Judaism and Christianity went on for several centuries, and we can no longer say that there was any kind of split, let alone a definitive split, in Jesus' own lifetime. Well if that becomes the norm <font color="#ff0000">[Highly unlikely, Rev Fr, highly unlikely, and for good reason: it ain't true] </font>for the understanding of the early period, then that changes the whole idea of how "Jesus wanted to convert Jews". So I mean there's a whole new <font color="#ff0000">[Remember, dear Listener, NEW IS GOOD, OLD IS BAD]</font> body of scholarship out there. I realise that that's probably a large majority <font color="#ff0000">[majorities are usually large aren't they?]</font>, not the vast majority ordinary Christians would say a definite "Yes" to your original statement here. But I think we need to help people understand that some of these simplistic ideas simply don't hold up on the scholarly level any more. <font color="#ff0000">[So your simplistic thoughts are not simplistic, but 2000 years of understanding is. Thanks for your wisdom and insight, Rev Fr. Reminds us of what the Holy Father said in his Apostolic Letter on Summorum Pontificum about the rumours of liberalisation of the 1962 Missal: <em>"News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown."</em>] </font> </div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: See how a tiny prayer opens on to everything. Father John Pawlikowsy, and we'll have a Jewish view on this story next week. </div>
<br /><div> </div>
<br /><div><font color="#ff0000"></font> </divThe Crittenden Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09939031370247731052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5860885878242248375.post-5841706051121742952008-03-10T19:07:00.000-07:002008-03-10T19:14:13.198-07:00Thoughts on the New Prayers for the JewsWe thought putting this in context would be a good idea. And we find it difficult to go much past the redoubtable Fr Z's explanations.<br /><br /><a href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/02/wdtprs-the-new-good-friday-prayer-for-jews-in-the-1962mr/">Here, for your edification</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>WDTPRS: The new Good Friday prayer for Jews in the 1962MR <br />CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 8:27 am <br /><br />I have been thinking a little about the new prayer Pope Benedict XVI has swapped into the 1962 Missale Romanum for Good Friday when we, as a whole Church have always, do now, and will always pray also for the Jews.<br /><br />I wrote about this issue at some length here.<br /><br />A have some initial observations.<br /><br /><br />Most people really wont care one way or another about this prayer.<br />It is used once a year.<br />Missals were changed by Popes all along the way.<br />Our Church is not a fly in amber.<br />People should actually read the prayer and think about it before freaking out.<br />Let’s have a look at the prayer as it appears in the 1962 Missale Romanum and now in its revised form in the 1962 Missale. My translations:<br /><br /> MR62 Latin<br />Oremus et pro Iudaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum; ut et ipsi agnoscant Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum. ... <br /><br />Omnipotens sempiternae Deus, qui Iudaeos etiam a tua misericordia non repellis: exaudi preces nostras, quas pro illius populi obcaecatione deferimus; ut agnita veritatis tuae luce, quae Christus est, a suis tenebris eruantur. Per eundem Dominum.<br /><br /> MR62 English<br />Let us also pray for the Jews: that our Lord and God take away the veil from their hearts; that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ to be our Lord.<br /><br /> Almighty eternal God, who also does not repell the Jews from Your mercy: graciously hear the prayers which we are conveying on behalf of the blindness of that people; so that once the light of Your Truth has been recognized, which is Christ, they may be rescued from their darkness.<br /><br /><br /> Revised ‘62 Latin<br /> Oremus et pro Iudaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant Iesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum.<br /><br /> Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui vis ut omnes homines salvi fiant et ad agnitionem veritatis veniant, concede propitius, ut plenitudine gentium in Ecclesiam Tuam intrante omnis Israel salvus fiat. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.<br /><br />Revised ‘62 English<br /><br /> Let us also pray for the Jews: that our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men.<br /><br /> Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Your Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.<br /> <br /><br />In first prayer of the couplet, the older version prayed that the darkness, in the image of a veil, be taken from the hearts of the Jews, presumably to let in the light of Christ, light being a metaphor for the Truth, who also is Christ. In first prayer of the newer version, we pray that God may illuminate, that is shed light, which is a metaphor for the Truth (who is Christ) in the hearts of the Jews. <br /><br />Okay… it is a little less poetic in the new version. I like the poetry of the previous version and mourn its loss. I found nothing, zero, offensive to Jews in that older version. After, we Christians pray in terms our our own darkness. Still… the first prayers of both the older version and the newer version say the same thing.<br /><br />The second prayer of the couplet, in the older version begins with a statement that God does not reject the Jews from His mercy. An obvious point. However, the Latin could be read to say in English: "O God, who does not reject even the Jews from Your mercy". In English this could be made to sound rather like the Jews must be pretty bad indeed and that it would be reasonable for a less merciful God to not be merciful. However, Latin, not English, is the language of Mass and this phrase need not have that negative connotation. It is better to render it "also the Jews" and not just "even the Jews". In the next part of the prayer we take it on ourselves to pray on behalf of their "darkness", that is, that they lack the Truth, the light of Christ. That’s fine: we Christians pray for ourselves in those very same terms. We refer to our own dark sins all the time, etc. Then we pray that they will be rescued from darkness, which is a metaphor for error and the possibility of the loss of salvation. No problems there. I think we are pretty much praying for ourselves in those terms to. However, the force of the statement comes as much through the beautiful turn of phrase, the poetry that has an impact on the ear. <br /><br />The second part of the newer version of the prayer, starts from the larger picture, rather than the smaller group. The older prayer focuses entirely on the Jews. The newer version starts from the fact that all men, whomever they may be, were made to be saved and happy with God in heaven. They are saved through "recognition of the Truth". Christ is that Truth. <br /><br />The interesting point here is what is being said in "grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Your Church, all Israel may be saved". <br /><br />This is a reference to Romans 11:25-26: <br /><br />For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery (lest you should be wise in your own conceits) that blindness (caecitas) in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles (plentitudo gentium) should come in (intraret). And so all Israel should be saved (omnis Israhel salvus fieret), as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.<br /><br />Earlier in Romans St. Paul says that the Church is the fulfillment of the Israel. However, here Paul is saying that God is not therefore finished with the Jews. In chapter 11, Paul is exploring how the Gentiles must be very humble in regard to their salvation. However, Paul says that Israel has, in fact, a blindness problem (caecitatas)... and that this blindness of Israel, that is the part of the Israel that did not covert and come into the Church… until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in. So, Paul focuses on the responsibility of the Gentiles, but he is also saying that God is not finished with the unconverted Jews. <br /><br />So, in the second part of the second prayer in the new, revised couplet: there is a direct scriptural reference to the "blindness… caecitas" of the Jews. This is very common with our Catholic prayers: often they only mention a fragment of a phrase of Scripture, and we must pick up the context.<br /><br />If the Jews who hear this newer prayer think they have scored a victory over the Church because the Pope was persuaded to change the text, they are very much deluded. The reference to the blindness of the Jews is still there: you just have to take the veil off your Christian Bible and look up the reference. Frankly, I think that if the Jews who were really grousing at the Holy See look at this prayer, they are not going to like what the find. They won’t be happy until the Pope stands at the center balcony of St. Peter’s and says that Jews are right and that Christ irrelevant to salvation. <br /><br />If any Catholic traditionalists are angry that the Pope changed the prayer, they too should pick up their Bibles and take a look around, thinking first, about what the prayer really says.<br /><br />The new prayer has retained the substance of the old prayers. As a matter of fact, Pope Benedict has provided a deeper point of reflection. Let us not forget that the earlier versions, going back to the 1570 editio princeps, are not doctrinally wrong. We are free to change our manner of expression. What Pope Benedict has done is shift the style, yes, but also add a layer for our prayer life, rather than take one away.<br /> <br /></blockquote>The Crittenden Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09939031370247731052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5860885878242248375.post-44513209983177567262008-03-05T00:03:00.000-08:002008-03-05T21:06:22.284-08:00The Text of Nostra Aetate - Declaration on the relation of the Church to Non-Christian ReligionsWe thought that it might be useful to set out the English text of <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html">Nostra Aetate</a>, the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on the relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions proclaimed on 28 October 1965. Emphases are ours.
<br />
<br />
<br /><em>DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS NOSTRA AETATE PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESSPOPE PAUL VI ON OCTOBER 28, 1965
<br />
<br />1. In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship. </em>
<br /><em>
<br />One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth.(1) One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men,(2) until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light.(3)
<br />
<br />Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?
<br />
<br />2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.
<br />
<br />Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)
<br />
<br />The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love <strong>and in witness to the Christian faith and life</strong>, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.
<br />
<br />3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
<br />
<br />Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.
<br />
<br />4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.
<br />
<br />Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, <strong>according to God's saving design</strong>, the <strong>beginnings of her faith and her election </strong>are found <strong>already</strong> among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is <strong>mysteriously foreshadowed </strong>by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people <strong>with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant</strong>. <strong>Nor can she forget </strong>that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree <strong>onto which have been grafted </strong>the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that <strong>by His cross Christ</strong>, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)
<br />
<br />The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and <strong>from them </strong>is the <strong>Christ</strong> according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.
<br />
<br /><strong>As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10)</strong> <strong>Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)</strong>
<br />
<br />Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that <strong>mutual understanding and respect </strong>which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of <strong>fraternal dialogues</strong>.
<br />
<br />True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) <strong>still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.</strong> <strong>Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.</strong> All should see to it, then, that <strong>in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ</strong>.
<br />
<br />Furthermore, in <strong>her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church</strong>, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, <strong>decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.</strong>
<br />
<br />Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that <strong>all may </strong>reach salvation. It is, <em><strong>therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.</strong></em>
<br />
<br />5. We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man's relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: "He who does not love does not know God" (1 John 4:8).
<br />
<br />No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.
<br />
<br />The Church reproves, as <strong>foreign to the mind of Christ</strong>, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to "maintain good fellowship among the nations" (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men,(14) so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.(15)
<br />
<br />NOTES
<br />1. Cf. Acts 17:26
<br />2. Cf. Wis. 8:1; Acts 14:17; Rom. 2:6-7; 1 Tim. 2:4
<br />3. Cf. Apoc. 21:23f.
<br />4. Cf 2 Cor. 5:18-19
<br />5. Cf St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.)
<br />6. Cf. Gal. 3:7
<br />7. Cf. Rom. 11:17-24
<br />8. Cf. Eph. 2:14-16
<br />9. Cf. Lk. 19:44
<br />10. Cf. Rom. 11:28
<br />11. Cf. Rom. 11:28-29; cf. dogmatic Constitution, </em><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html"><em>Lumen Gentium</em></a><em> (Light of nations) AAS, 57 (1965) pag. 20
<br />12. Cf. Is. 66:23; Ps. 65:4; Rom. 11:11-32
<br />13. Cf. John. 19:6
<br />14. Cf. Rom. 12:18
<br />15. Cf. Matt. 5:45</em>
<br /></em>The Crittenden Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09939031370247731052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5860885878242248375.post-14185179130826421462008-03-04T18:25:00.000-08:002008-03-10T20:37:39.239-07:00How he stirs the pot - II<div>In our second piece, we look at <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2171955.htm">the Religion Report Program from two Wednesday's ago</a> (that preceeded our first posting below).</div>
<br /><div> </div>
<br /><div>Stephen Crittenden got the...sorry...got <strong>a </strong>"Catholic view" of the issue of the change by Pope Benedict XVI of the Good Friday prayers for the conversion of the Jews in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite of the Mass.
<br />
<br />So that we know who the interlocutor is, he is one Father John Pawlikowsky, whom Crittenden describes as "one of the most senior figures in the church, involved in dialogue with the Jews. In fact he's the international President of the Council of Christians and Jews". Okay, so we have a pretty good idea of where this is likely to take us, don't we...let's see:
<br />
<br />
<br />Well you may remember the debate in the Catholic church last year when Pope Benedict <strong>reintroduced</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[Wrong. See our comments on the last post. "Liberated" / "confirmed the non-abolition of" would be more accurate. Or, to use the words of the Holy Father from the <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html">Apostolic Letter to the Bishops</a>: <em>"I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted."</em> ] </font>the <strong>old</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[note the common implication of the Modernist (i.e. Regressivist) mentality...anythiny OLD is BAD, anything NEW is GOOD] </font>pre-Vatican II Latin missal <font color="#ff0000">[Presumably, Crittenden doesn't know - why doesn't he know?? - that all the official text of the Missal is in Latin because that's the normative language of the liturgy!] </font>of 1962 in an effort to build bridges with <strong>Catholic traditionalists</strong>. <font color="#ff0000">[It's not entirely clear from the text, but if the implication here is that this is <strong>solely </strong>a sop to the Society of St Pius X (who, presumably are the "traditionalists" he refers to, given that the only traditionists really in existence are at the <strong>fringes</strong> of the church not in the <strong>heart </strong>of the Church...), then that's wrong too. More on that later. At this point the Pope's words are interesting: </font><font color="#ff0000"><em>"We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church." </em>Sounds like the Pope things there are traditionalists in the heart of the Church, too and, wethinks, he ought to know<em>]</em></font></div>
<br /><div><font color="#ff0000"><em></em></font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />Critics were quick to point out that the old rite contained <strong>at least</strong> one prayer <font color="#ff0000">[To our knowledge there is only one prayer (consisting of two parts) that is in issue. Is it possible that Crittenden is reverencing somethingelse (eg the Office)?] </font>, a Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews, that used language which <strong>was really no longer acceptable</strong>. <font color="#ff0000">[Note how Crittenden simply imposes a judgment: of course, it's no longer acceptable because the views of the anti-Catholic within and outside the Catholic church deem it to be so, and this uncritical, irrational position, should and will be accepted by you, Dear Listener, because Crittenden saith it is so] </font>This is it. <font color="#ff0000">[Gird your loins, Listeners...]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />'Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the <strong>veil from their hearts</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[Fr Z in the post below, reminds us that this is a direct biblical allusion. Not that Crittenden would INFORM you of that, of course.] </font>and that they also <strong>may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ</strong>. <font color="#ff0000">[would have thought that's fair enough] </font>Almighty and everlasting God, you do not refuse your mercy <strong>even</strong> to the Jews <font color="#ff0000">[Clearly the "even" gets the Modernist's goat: it's better translated into English as "also"]</font>. Hear the prayers which we offer for the <strong>blindness of that people</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[a</font><font color="#ff0000"> further direct biblical allusion. Not that Crittenden would INFORM you of that, of course.</font>], so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth.' </div>
<br /><div>
<br />Well <strong>that kind</strong> of language <strong>went out with</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[Crittenden's contempt is obvious, no?] </font>the Second Vatican Council's declaration on the church's relation with non-Christians, called Nostrae Aetate. Mainstream Catholics <font color="#ff0000">[Behold, the men and women of straw have arrived. Those nasty traditionists couldn't possibily be <font color="#ff0000">"</font><strong>Mainstream Catholics"</strong> , could they dear Listener. No they do weird things like actually believe that the consecrated bread and wine are actually the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Shameful] </font><strong>these da</strong>ys <font color="#ff0000">[As opposed to the "Mainstream Catholics" of 1963 and any before who clearly had the wrong end of the stick] </font>say a completely <font color="#000000"><strong>different</strong></font> prayer for the Jews on Good Friday that makes no mention of conversion. <font color="#ff0000">[Right, so Crittenden wants you to believe that Catholics no longer prayer for conversion in the Novus Ordo, the New Order of Mass. The prayer is:
<br />
<br />"Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption."
<br />
<br />So, it's clear to anyone who stops for a second that the prayer in the Novus Ordo is phrased in language that is seen as the diplomatic and open-ended. But, deliciously vague and open to interpretations that fudge the issue. You could argue with some validity: "No, Catholics don't pray for conversion" and much as you could that "Yes, Catholics still pray for conversion of the Jews." Except of course, the Pope reckons we still do. Catholics believe the "fullness of redemption" is Christ. Therefore Catholics pray that God will bring Jews to recognise Christ; how and when, Catholics don't presume to know. What Catholics do NOT do is force Christ upon anyone. That's not what Catholics understand Faith to be. Not that Crittenden would INFORM you of that.]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />Well now Pope Benedict has dumped <font color="#ff0000">["dumped", Listener] </font>the prayer from the old Latin rite and written a third prayer, minus the offensive <font color="#ff0000">[yep, offensive. Bear in mind what Rabbi Rosen said about that in last week's blog entry: that it's not offensive, properly understood]</font> language, but the language of conversion <strong>is back</strong>. <font color="#ff0000">[Oh, dear. Where did it go in the first place?] </font>Now this may <strong>seem like</strong> a tiny technical matter,<font color="#ff0000"> [yeah, right. Is this bloke the full quid?] </font> only of interest to <strong>a few diehards </strong><font color="#ff0000">[So, the vast majority of Catholics in communion with the Pope and faithful to the 2000 tradition of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, are "a few diehards" in Crittenden's view, with all the negative connotations that accompany that word. Whereas the "liberal" Catholics are okay, because, well, they're aren't TOO Catholic. And being TOO Catholic, is a problem for everyone else] </font>who want to <strong>hang on to the Latin. </strong><font color="#ff0000">[Crittenden wears his ignorance and idiocy on his sleeve] </font>But it also opens an extremely interesting theological can of worms. </div>
<br /><div>
<br />Father John Pawlikowsky is one of the most senior figures in the church, involved <font color="#ff0000">[We imagine the transcript inserts this comma where it don't belong] </font> in dialogue with the Jews. In fact he's the international President of the Council of Christians and Jews. He says the way the Pope has addressed the Jewish prayer is quite inadequate.<font color="#ff0000"> /font> </div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: With some serious reflection, it could have been handled far better because any number of Jewish and Christian groups and inter-religious groups wrote to the Vatican well in advance, and there were also cardinals and bishops who wrote saying there was a problem here that needs addressing, if you're going to restore the prayers of the '62 missal. <font color="#ff0000">[So, even the Catholics are mis-representing the liberalisation of the 1962 missal, so what credibility should we attribute to the Rev Fr Pawlikowsky have on issues of the Ancient Rite of Mass? Evidently he knows something about relations with the Jewish Faith, but does he know diddly squat about the Extraordinary Form of the Mass? Let's see] </font>And unfortunately he was very late in the game when they even began to take serious notice of the concerns. </div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: Is the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the old Latin rite from 1962, just one small sign of what was wrong with the old rite, <font color="#ff0000">[And, dear Crittenden, what were the others? That it isn't Protestant enough? That it is too Catholic because it very clearly reflects a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?] </font>and why it needed to be reformed? Does the Jewish prayer reflect in fact, <strong>a mentality</strong> that's characteristic of the whole rite? <font color="#ff0000">[After much deliberation, we think Crittenden is trying to say that the Extraordinary Form is inherently offensive to the Jews, and - because he only wants to hint at it, without saying the A-word - is, in some fashion Antisemitic; is that it? Is that what he's saying?? If so, say so, in order that we know precisely where you stand]</font></div><font color="#ff0000"></font>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Well it certainly reflects <strong>a theological position</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[The Rev Fr isn't going to be so ballsy is he?] </font>with respect to the Jews and also I would say to other Christians and to people of other faith traditions, including Muslims and so on. </font></div><font color="#ff0000"></font>[If Rev Fr means that Catholics would only prayer for others conversion, then he is being misleading. Catholics pray for their own conversion first and foremost.</div><font color="#ff0000"></font>] There is a significant theological difference between the theological approach of the old rite over against the '70 missal. <font color="#ff0000">[Yep: the Tradtional Form is Catholic and the English translation of the 1970 Missal is so poor and unfaithful to the official Latin version of that same Missal, that you can make a case for just about any interpretation you care to] </font>There are a number of articles in the international press by liturgists <font color="#ff0000">[D</font><font color="#ff0000">Be very wary of reading anything by a person who calls themself a "liturgist", Rev Fr, they usually have no understanding of what the Mass really is] </font>who have pointed out that you can't blend the two, they're really quite distinct, and <strong>obviously Vatican II<font color="#ff0000"> </font>saw </strong>some problem with the old one or else they wouldn't have changed it. <font color="#ff0000">[Wrong, Rev Fr. Shouldn't you point out that the Fathers of Vatican 2 did not want the Mass completely re-written; the revision of the rites that the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy talks of is much more restrictive than what actually occured when Archbishop Bugnini took a sledge hammer to the Mass. Re-writing the evolving tradition of the Mass - what Pope Benedict calls a "fabricated" liturgy - was the role assumed by the Consilium lead by the Bugnini. NOW THAT, CRITTENDEN, WOULD be a story you could break: Crittenden exposes what really happened following Vatican 2 : the Men who highjacked the </font><font color="#ff0000">Council and ensured its wishes were never implemented] They wouldn't have voted to change it if they didn't think there was some difficulty. [The misrepresentation here is astonshing: presumably the reference to people "voting", refers to the Constitution the Fathers of the Second Vatican council voted for and adopted. They also wanted Latin to be retained in the Latin Rite, Gregorian Chant to have pride of place in liturgy all other things being equal and said nothing about ripping out high altars or turning the priest to face the congregation (ie away from the East). But, hey, those kinds of facts would distroy the illusion, so let's not tell anyone about that, but keep the laity in the dark, because they don't and shouldn't read the documents of the Second Vatican Council for themselves should they]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: So what's your response then to this new prayer that the Pope has created for the <font color="#000000"><strong>updated Latin rite</strong>?</font> <font color="#ff0000">[We don't think Crittenden would get the irony of this phrase]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Well first of all, I personally can't see any need for it. We have a Latin version of the '70 prayer, it would have been the most simple thing in the world to have used that. <font color="#ff0000">[Make you're job a little easier, eh, Rev Fr? Might the Pope just see that it fudges the issue and wants to clarify it. Stay tuned, because the '70 prayer might change too, before too long. No wouldn't that throw the cat amongst the proverbial]</font> That prayer, one has to say, has <strong>a certain</strong> ambiguity <font color="#ff0000">[No, it's a "fudge", Rev Fr, a "fudge"] </font>which reflects <strong>the ambiguity </strong>of <strong>even</strong> Nostrae Aetate <font color="#ff0000">[ah, is the Rev Fr using "even" ironically here?? "even the Jews"?] </font><font color="#ff0000">[So, is the Rev Fr implying there is virtue in avoiding the issue??] </font>regarding the whole question of you put the Jewish-Christian relationship together, theologically, from a Catholic perspective, and how mission might fit into that. <font color="#ff0000">[Wethinks Rev Fr is trying to say: Catholics don't know whether they should require, seek or pray for the conversion fo the Jews. On that score, he'd be right]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: <strong>Some people might say</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[those famous weasel words] </font>that's the <strong>genius</strong> of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews in the modern rite, that it sidesteps the question so neatly. <font color="#ff0000">[And there is also an argument that the "genius" is the folly of the modern prayer. Let's see what the Rev Fr thinks?] </font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Well I think what it did was Vatican II was not in a position to solve that issue. <font color="#ff0000">[But, Father, that's not Crittenden tells us? He said V2's Nostrae Aetate changed all that old understanding and opened the doors for the modern world to come into the Catholic Church!] </font>What it did say very clearly and decisively is that the old theology was no longer acceptable. <font color="#ff0000">[If he means that an unauthentic (mis)interpretation of Catholic Theology was unacceptable, he's right, and it remains unacceptable. But it's a bit misleading to say one illinformed racist view, constitutes the "old" theology of the Church] </font>Now what kind of new formulation of the Jewish Christian relationship theologically, should replace it, is a matter I think that theologians have to work on over a number of years, and in a sense, the ambiguity of the '70 prayer, left that open as a possibility, <font color="#ff0000">[Well, a bit more than "a possiblity" Rev Fr, because most Catholics and non-Catholics seem to think that we don't pray for conversion of the Jews anymore, so the drafters of the 1970 prayer were very successful in their aim] </font>but it's a much more positive, appreciative prayer for the Jews, recognising what Nostrae Aetate did say very decisively, that Jews remain a part of the covenantal tradition. <font color="#ff0000">[Rev Fr, that's a bit simplistic ain't it. See the text of Nostrae Aetate below for yourselves] </font>This one though, the terrible language <font color="#ff0000">[Rev Fr, you should know better than this] </font>of the '62 prayer has been eliminated by the Pope and that is a step forward. Nonetheless, its whole emphasis is on conversion, and that is such a sensitive issue with Jews. <font color="#ff0000">[And here, finally, is the issue: <strong>Some </strong>Jews, don't like the fact that the Catholic Church prays for their conversion and always has, as it is has been part of Catholic faith from Apostolic times. That, of course, is not to dismisss that huge sensitivies felt by many Jews about what conversion means, and the "forced conversions" and other sordid episodes in both Church and World history that remain so clearly in Jewish memory. However, there are ways to address this, without inventing a new theology that is not what the Church has inherited.]</font>Frankly, <strong>many Jews see that as a way of ultimately killing off the Jewish community</strong>. <font color="#ff0000">[WELL, has the Rev Fr gone just a little over the edge or what?? Is the implication here that Catholics are killers of the Jews??? Or, are we not to take the REv Fr's words literally, but interpreting it to mean the Catholic Church has sought to kill Jewish faith and culture? If the former, then we suggest this Catholic who is "International President of the Council of Christians and Jews" should spend a little time disabusing such Jews of such outrageous interpretations. If he hasn't, why not?]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: Let's go back <font color="#ff0000">[No, please don't press the Rev Fr on the outrageous claim he just made, Crittenden, please don't do that] </font>to the point you just made a few moments ago, that the Pope could have used a Latin translation of the prayer that <strong>mainstream Catholics</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[again] </font>say on Good Friday in the modern rite. But he didn't do that, in the end he wrote a third prayer. It seems obvious that <strong>he was up to something</strong>; <font color="#ff0000">[Of course, Crittenden wants you to think the the Pope and leader of the Church is plotting behind the backs of the real church: ie the modernists, protestants and pseudo-Catholics who make up the real church. Oh, please, Crittenden.] </font>what do you think it was he was up to? </div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Yes, and you know, Cardinal Bertoni, the Secretary of State, towards the end of the Summer, had given <strong>us some hope</strong> <font color="#ff0000">["Us" Catholics, or "Us" with modernist agendas?] </font>that that would be the solution. That didn't happen, as you say. Look, I can't read the Pope's mind and heart, I don't know exactly what he had in mind here. <font color="#ff0000">[Right, so why speculate, then? In any case, does the Rev Fr speak to anyone in the Vatican, perchance, especially given his important position in the Church? Does he read any commentary on the issue or speak to anyone, perchance, given he is "one of the most senior figures in the church, involved in dialogue with the Jews". You get the feeling that the Council of Christians and Jews is a voluntary interest group with no official status within the Church from this commentary] </font>I think the general feeling <font color="#ff0000">[Ah yes, the General Feeling; She's a first cousin to Some People Might Say, dear Listener] </font>is that the people who are in favour of the '62 missal don't really regard the '70 missal with great admiration, and therefore simply do not want anything taken or imported from the '70 missal into the '62 missal. <font color="#ff0000">[Here the Rev Fr is partially right, but not for the reasons he thinks (or at least implies). A big issue is whether the Holy Father's decision to change the Good Friday Prayer is a good thing for what it implies about change to the venerable liturgical tradition represented in the Extraordinary Form. Commentary by bloggers on Fr Z's site for instances indicates a worry that if the Pope changes this kind of prayer, what else could be changed by Popes who are less inclined to fulsome understanding of the Church's liturgical tradition. Yes, Listeners, there are some of those too!!!] </font>Now to what extent the Pope personally shares some of those views, is anyone's guess. </div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: Are we talking about the church holding or appearing to hold, simultaneously, two incompatible theologies? <font color="#ff0000">[Ok, Crittenden, ok, you've finally asked a good question. If the answer is "yes", let's hope you go on to ask "why" and "what's really motivating this?]</font></div><font color="#ff0000"></font>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Well, that's my contention, that <strong>in a sense there's a significant difference between the theologies that under-gird the new prayer and the one that under-girds the prayer of the '70 missal</strong>. And I've said this any number of times in more dramatic ways or more sober ways, but you know, <strong>the church looks like it's speaking from the two sides of its mouth</strong>, though it's put a little more gingerly. It's <strong>speaking with two voices that are not really compatible, and therefore I think its integrity in terms of the dialogue with Jews, is compromised</strong>. <font color="#ff0000">[Okay, so the implication is also that dialogue amongst Catholics is also compromised. Does the Catholic Church believe what it always has (1962 Missal) or has there been a radical change (1970 Missal)? If the answer is yes, how did this happen, who authorised it, why are people telling us something different, and how can that position be justified?] </font>I mean the Jewish community can rightly ask, Well which of the theologies really pertains to us? <font color="#ff0000">[We dare say the Catholic community would ask the same question Rev Fr] </font>And the difficulty now is, you know many people say, Well don't worry about this because only a small number of people are going to celebrate the liturgy with the '62 missal. <font color="#ff0000">[And Rev Fr, who are saying this?] </font>That may be true in terms of numbers, but we're already seeing bloggers and so on, conservative bloggers, <font color="#ff0000">[Darn pests they are, aren't they Father, making it difficult for all the Regressivist Modernist Hippies in charge of the Church who want it stuck firmly in the 1960s] </font>saying 'Oh now see, the Pope himself has put his stamp on this theology.' Whereas the theology of the '70 missal only has the stamp of Vatican II. <font color="#ff0000">[It doesn't have even the stamp of V2, Rev Fr, you ought to know that and say so]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: And so where does that leave 40 years of Jewish-Christian dialogue? <font color="#ff0000">[That's a relevant question] </font>Where does it leave people like you? <font color="#ff0000">[That's not a relevant question]</font> </div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Well I would say confused to some extent, uncertain as to where to go. But I would say also determined to carry on. I mean, this is what we're seeing in the interchange among those of us who have been involved in dialogue for many years. There is a resilient spirit here that we will not give in easily, <font color="#ff0000">[It's an issue of power isn't it, Rev Fr. The Modernist Hippy Clergy, always conceived it thus, and they will contineu to act that way] </font>and that the vision of Vatican II <font color="#ff0000">[Oh, oh: so not only only do we have to contended with a "Spirit of Vatican II" that does not exist and isn't even in the agreed documents - what Pope Benedict calls a "hermeutic of rupture" (intepreting the Council as though it created a new Church ruptured from the 2000 year tradition of all that went before it - we have "vision of Vatican II" as well - what the duece could that mean??] </font>as expressed in Nostrae Aetate, must be continued and must be expressed, not only in theology but also in prayer. <font color="#ff0000">[We wonder if the irony hits the Rev Fr: "lex orandi, lex credendi" - the law of prayer is the law of faith - a mantra that those in favour of the traditional form of Mass like to use to say: "If we believe what we always believe, how could you deny us the form of Mass we always used"] </font>I mean our colleague, [Sr] Dr Mary Boys, made a very, very telling point which I think very much moved many in the Jewish community, that on Good Fridays should we praying for the conversion of Jews, or should we be praying for the conversion from our long history of Christian anti-Semitism. <font color="#ff0000">[Okay, see the previous post for the links to the Jewish prayers that reflect a certain Anti-Catholicism and anti-other things that haven't got a wide airing for some inexplicable reason.] </font>I mean, I think it's a good question. </div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: Yes. This is such an interesting theological grey area however. I wonder whether it was inevitable that Pope Benedict would want to resolve it. </div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Well see I don't think he has resolved it, that's the point. <font color="#ff0000">[No, he hasn't resovled it yet because the 1970 Missal and 1962 Missal still differ, but when the 1970 Missal prayer changes too, he still won't have resolved it in your mind, Rev Fr, because he hasn't said what you want him to say. That's the point, isn't it, Rev Fr]</font></div>
<br /><div><font color="#ff0000"></font>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: That's right. </div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: And he can't resolve it just by going and sitting down and writing a prayer in a couple of weeks. I mean true dialogue involves communication with people. <font color="#ff0000">[So, the Rev Fr, seriously thinks - or wants us to think - that this ultra-consultative pope who has been severely criticised for not moving quickly on anything precisly because he consults so thoroughly is actually a hermit speaking to no-one about such important issues? This beggars belief.] </font>One of the frustrating things frankly about Pope Benedict's approach to dialogue is that it's very heady, it's very theoretical, and yet the 1974 or '75 Vatican guidelines, however you name them, says among the most important points that Catholics should come to know Jews as they understand themselves. Authentic dialogue is a dialogue among people, not just the dialogue of the head, and I think it's important that the Pope comes to hear and understand how conversion, the idea of conversion and prayer for conversion, which then can inevitably lead to concrete programming for conversion, how that impacts the Jewish community that has experienced the Holocaust, that has experienced anti-Semitism and so on. I mean you want the stuff of authentic dialogue, and this is what seems to me to be missing with his approach. And I don't know, perhaps we can break through this. I mean I said back in 2001 in a talk at the University of Cambridge, that I thought that conversion was the issue that was lurking in the shadows, was hiding under the table and one day would have to be addressed in a more forthright way. <font color="#ff0000">[About this, the Rev Fr is right: Do Catholics pray for the conversion of the Jews or not? But wethinks, Rev Fr knows the answer is "yes" we do, but doesn't like the answer he's hearing] </font>Many of my own colleagues in the dialogue said "Oh no, the Catholic church has given up trying to convert Jews". <font color="#ff0000">[And, pray tell, Rev Fr, who told them that? Where did they get that impression? The usual modernist, hippy hierarchy that passes for the name the "Episcopal Conference of such and such" we suppose] </font>Well I wasn't so sure, and <strong>unfortunately</strong> <font color="#ff0000">[Right, we know we know where you stand. Can Crittenden let us hear the authentic Catholic voice please??] </font>in a way, I've been proven correct by this situation. And now it's on the table, and I don't know, we have to try to find constructive ways to deal with it. </div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: I'm sure many people would find it difficult to get their heads around the idea that Jesus didn't come to convert the Jews. <font color="#ff0000">[Applause, Crittenden, but why leave this one until last??]</font></div>
<br /><div>
<br />John Pawlikowsky: Well I mean here is where you get into a very, very complex area. <font color="#ff0000">[Ah, Rev Fr, the question is not that complex really]</font> There is a whole new growing body of scholarly literature done essentially by biblical scholars, that really quite changes our understanding of how Jesus related to the Jewish community of his time. <font color="#ff0000">[So, you have in mind the Pope's dialogue with the Jews in his book on the historical Jesus, "Jesus of Nazareth"??] </font>There's an increasing number of scholars, very reputable New Testament scholars, who are saying "There is no evidence that Jesus ever intended to found a separate religious institution in his own lifetime", <font color="#ff0000">[As, we said, modernists, protestants, Christian atheists, Jews, Roman Protestants, you name them, they're there. The thing we don't get is why on earth do they continue to call themselves "Catholic". Listerners, you just heard a Catholic priest on the payroll imply that Christ did not found a separate religious institution. Why is this guy still a Cathlolic priest?] </font>and that we see now that the linkage between Judaism and Christianity went on for several centuries, and we can no longer say that there was any kind of split, let alone a definitive split, in Jesus' own lifetime. Well if that becomes the norm <font color="#ff0000">[Highly unlikely, Rev Fr, highly unlikely, and for good reason: it ain't true] </font>for the understanding of the early period, then that changes the whole idea of how "Jesus wanted to convert Jews". So I mean there's a whole new <font color="#ff0000">[Remember, dear Listener, NEW IS GOOD, OLD IS BAD]</font> body of scholarship out there. I realise that that's probably a large majority <font color="#ff0000">[majorities are usually large aren't they?]</font>, not the vast majority ordinary Christians would say a definite "Yes" to your original statement here. But I think we need to help people understand that some of these simplistic ideas simply don't hold up on the scholarly level any more. <font color="#ff0000">[So your simplistic thoughts are not simplistic, but 2000 years of understanding is. Thanks for your wisdom and insight, Rev Fr. Reminds us of what the Holy Father said in his Apostolic Letter on Summorum Pontificum about the rumours of liberalisation of the 1962 Missal: <em>"News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown."</em>] </font> </div>
<br /><div>
<br />Stephen Crittenden: See how a tiny prayer opens on to everything. Father John Pawlikowsy, and we'll have a Jewish view on this story next week. </div>
<br /><div> </div>
<br /><div><font color="#ff0000"></font> </div>The Crittenden Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09939031370247731052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5860885878242248375.post-32271871455976598212008-02-27T16:16:00.000-08:002008-02-27T20:40:45.605-08:00How he stirs the pot IIn our first piece, let's look at Crittenden's masterful analysis of the new Good Friday prayer for the Conversion of the Jews in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.<br /><br />Here's the transcript from this <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2173595.htm#anchor2">Wednesday's program</a>, with our comments and emphases:<br /><br />MUSIC<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: That's sung by the Hilliard Ensemble, Arvo Pärt's 'Miserere'.<a name="anchor2"></a><br /><br />Well now back to last week's story on how Pope Benedict has rewritten the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews.<br /><br />You'll remember that last year the Pope revived the old Latin rite of 1962. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Well, no, actually: "all" this Pope did was make it clear that the Ancient Rite was never abolished and that individual priests had the right to celebrate this venerable traditional form of the Mass when they wish without any particular permission required from a Bishop. In doing so, this undemocratic Pope gave the ancient form of the Mass back to the people and the priests an circumvented the ignorance, obfuscation, meanness and disobedience to lawful authority that has characterised the last 40 years on the subject of the "old Mass". Nor is it the "old" Latin rite of 1962: that's just the last form of the official liturgical books which record it. The rite in this form goes back to sometime between the 3rd and 6th century AD, and of course traces its essence to the Last Supper. That's our Catholic Faith.] </span>That was controversial enough <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Meaning? That this was a bad thing that "liberals" and "progressives" couldn't stomach because they have an axe to grind? What <strong>should</strong> be "controversial" is the general disobedience of many Bishops and priests who point blank refuse to do what the Popes since Paul VI (you know, the one who ended the Second Vatican Council?) of allowing the Ancient form of the right to those who legitimately want it. This lack of a pastoral liberal approach is want Crittenden should describe as "controversial", but, hey, that's a "conservative" agenda that dare not speak its name. Let's just dismiss the surveys done in many European media which showed support for the "liberalisation" of the old Mass at between 70 and 90% (see for example <a href="http://www.corriere.it/appsSondaggi/votazioneDispatch.do?method=risultati&amp;idSondaggio=176">the poll conducted by the Milanese newspaper Il Corriere della Sera where 75.1% were in favour of making the old Mass more available</a>] </span>, but there was particular concern <span style="color:#ff0000;">[from whom exactly? the usual small section of non-Catholics and illiberal Catholics who don't want to do what the Pope and the Church legitimately tells them to do] </span>about the somewhat offensive wording of one particular Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[who says it's "offensive" , Crittenden? That's a value judgement that isn't borne out if you look at what other Jews are saying about this (more below) or even your own interviewee, wethinks.] </span>Benedict has rewritten the prayer, taking out the offensive references, <span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">[again, let's keep the heart rate up folks]</span> </span>but the new prayer <strong>still </strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[well, yes, we should think it does!]</span> prays for the conversion of the Jews, something that mainstream Catholics using the modern rite, no longer do. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[aye there's the rub, folks: the Man of Straw: that Catholics who pray in the traditional form are not "mainstream": where "mainstream" (whatever that means - protestant?) is what Catholics are called to be. Christ said something about being against the world and a sign of contradiction to the world, didn't he??]</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span><br />Where this all gets interesting is that it points to a theological ambiguity <span style="color:#ff0000;">[well, actually there is no ambiguity: Catholics pray for Jews so that they might accept what Catholics believe is the fullness of the Faith brought to its completion in Christ, the Messiah and Saviour of the World. Jews don't accept that, of course, which is fine: but Catholics will not, and cannot, say that this truth which Christ asks we proclaim to all the nations is something we are not going to talk about, but hide, because it might upsetting someone (even some sections of that People who were the first to hear the word of God] </span>and that many Jews and Catholics <span style="color:#ff0000;">[you mean the Roman Protestants, wethinks]</span> thought had been resolved, but very definitely hasn't been. If it's no longer appropriate after the Holocaust, to pray for the conversion of the Jews, <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Hello??? This is just plain nutty and mischievous, next the Catholic Church will be accused of inciting and encouraging the Holocaust]</span> then what are Christians meant to imagine that Jesus was up to roaming around Galilee 2000 years ago? <span style="color:#ff0000;">[We love the tone, folks, we love the tone. Crittenden v Pope: who's your money on?]</span> And if the Pope is saying it still is appropriate, where does that leave the last 40 years of Interreligious Dialogue? <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Well, it leaves us where it should have originally place it ought to be assessed calmly and rationally: through dialogue in truth and charity we come to a better understanding of what the other believes and what we believe and where they diverge and why; for good reason or just because of hardened and entrenched positions and misunderstandings. The aim of Ecumenism is not that the Catholic Church changes its beliefs or teachings that have always been held to part of Catholic faith and so are not open to change, just because non-Catholics and Roman Protestants don't like them].</span><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span></strong><br />Rabbi David Rosen is Chairman of the IJCIC, the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations. He joins us now. Rabbi Rosen, the Pope seems to have taken a step forward and a step backwards. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[We so hope, Crittenden writes his own scripts] </span>Are you disappointed, or happy with what he's done?<br /><br />David Rosen: It depends I suppose, where one is looking from. And because we were looking from the perspective of the 1970 missal, the language that is used throughout the Catholic world in the vernacular,<span style="color:#ff0000;"> [Actually, the definitive text is the Latin. The vernacular translations, are just that and largely hurried, poor translations of the Latin text that usually lose the richness and accuracy of the official prayer. A HUGE problem for Catholics - why not do a story into what's behind that Mr Crittenden?- which is why they are undergoing revision currently so they are more faithful to the original. But, we digress...] </span>which is the prayer then composed during the regnum of Pope Paul VI <span style="color:#ff0000;">["regnum"! noted] </span>which calls for God to show his love to the people he first covenanted with, that they be loyal to that covenant and find the fullness of salvation without, and leaving that final phrase open to different interpretation <span style="color:#ff0000;">[You mean, a final phrase that's so meally mouthed that it fudges the clarity of Catholic teaching for fear of upsetting anyone and making Catholics believe "you know, we don't believe that stuff any more, that's gone out with the Second Vatican Council". Actually, we think if that was the intention of the prayer it was not the right call to make, precisely because it confuses people - especially Catholics - about what the Church believes]</span>, I would hope and imagine out of a certain sensitivity to these different theological world views. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[So, the principle the Rabbi SEEMS to be putting is that the Catholic Church should amend her official public prayer to reflect that other people and faiths don't share the Cathoilc faith. IF that's what he is saying, that's EXTRAORDINARY] </span>Unfortunately in the new Latin version, <span style="color:#ff0000;">[The Rabbi presumably means the new version for the 1962 Missal, not the 1970 Missal] </span>Pope Benedict hasn't done that. So he has improved on the original Latin text prior to the Second Vatican Council which had within it rather derogatory language towards the Jews, <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Not even all Jews believe this is derogatory (and, if we go on, nor does the Rabbi) so this is a stretch. The Rabbi should be saying, the lanague that "some believe is derogatory"] </span>and that doesn't appear there, so it's better than the original Latin text. But nevertheless it is not as open as the vernacular general text because it calls explicitly for Jews to recognise the fullness of salvation through Jesus of Nazareth, which of course is incompatible with Jewish faith. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Right: there it is. Newsflash: Catholicism and Judiasm disagree on who the Messiah is? Do the Rabbi (and Crittenden) want Catholicism to resile from the belief that Christ is the Messiah. Sorry, it can't, won't and shouldn't happen]. </span>So many people would say, 'Well you know, good morning, that's what Christianity is all about', and they were probably right, [<span style="color:#ff0000;">Thanks] </span>but there was room for the Jews to assume, and many within the Catholic church, and indeed many cardinals even stated that the attitude of the Catholic church has changed since the Second Vatican Council to one that puts the Jews in a particular category. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[And what makes us think that those Jews, Catholics and Cardinals were actually right? It's not what the Second Vatican Council said and its not what the Popes have said since. What they have repeatedly said is that any generalised attitude that is disrespectful (and worse!!) of the Jews as the first to hear the word of completely and utterly wrong and inappropriate. Not, that Catholics should not hope for the conversion to CHRIST of FIRSTLY, ourselves and SECONDLY all others (including the Jews)] </span>So it's clear what Benedict's position is, it's a bit disappointing for those of us who hoped that his language would have the same openness <span style="color:#ff0000;">[you mean, ambiguous and misleading?] </span>as the 1970 missal as well.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: You say that the recently created prayer by Pope Benedict is incompatible with Jewish faith, because it calls for the conversion of the Jewish people. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Oh, please: is he really suggesting that Catholic prayers should be compatible with Jewish faith??] </span>That raises the question of whether that is or should be, offensive to Jews.<br /><br />David Rosen: Obviously, you know the witticism if you have two Jews, you have three viewpoints. But from my personal perspective, <strong>I don't think that somebody's belief that their faith is central for the salvation for the human personality and the desires of everybody should share that faith, I don't consider that offensive</strong>, <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Right, so what's the point of this discussion then? Is it to just perpetuate a received anti-Catholic view that Catholics hate Jews? If not, what?] </span><strong>I consider it theologically problematic. I can't personally understand how any one faith can encapsulate the totality of the divine, and that any one faith can be the exclusive path. But I don't consider it offensive.</strong> <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Newsflash: Catholics and Jews have theological differences of opinion. And the Catholic expression is not something this Rabbi finds offensive. So what is this interview and Crittenden's posturing all about??]</span> So if somebody says 'I hope and pray for the day when you will be able to share my faith personally', <span style="color:#ff0000;">[And that's what Catholics do in these prayers] </span>I'm not offended by that. I know that there are some Jews who are mainly for historical reasons because of what it evokes, and the memories, the tragic memories of the past. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Th</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">is is regrettable, of course, but not a reason why the Catholic faith should be changed] </span>But I'm not offended by that, <span style="color:#ff0000;">[So how many times is Rabbi Rosen going to dismiss the "offensiveness" premise of Crittenden's interview, one, two, three...]</span> and therefore I didn't use language in terms of my reactions to the Pope's prayer that suggested that there was any offence involved. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Again]</span> I've used the language of disappointment because I perhaps have <strong>deluded</strong> myself (but certainly there <strong>were others within the church who had helped that process</strong>) <span style="color:#ff0000;"></span>into thinking that actually the Catholic church doesn't believe that Jews have to believe in Jesus in order to find salvation, because the original covenant before Jesus' coming was a covenant of salvation with God and therefore the Children of Israel are in a category as a foundation of the covenant by which through faith in Jesus the nations of the world come into that covenantal relationship. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[And that, Dear Listeneners, is the problem: there has been a concerted campaign by many Catholics, even Cardinals, who would have us all believe that the Catholic Church does not believe any more that it was founded by Christ and that the fullness of His Church subsists in the Catholic Church] </span>And as I say, there have been many within the church, including Cardinals. Even the Cardinal who is responsible at the moment for relations with Jewish people, and his predecessor, Cardinal Cassidy, one of the greatest princes of the church, <span style="color:#ff0000;">[we dare say the Rabbi uses "princes of the church" with a respect tone, whereas many others in the media (Mr C included) use it with disdain and as an insult, because they reject hierarchical nature of the Church, but we disgress] </span>from Australia, have used language in the past that has led us to believe it, there is that special relationship and that the church would no longer have a formal prayer for the conversion of the Jews<span style="color:#ff0000;"> [But, Rabbi, the Oridinary Form of the Roman Rite, 1970, also has a prayer for conversion, it's just that the language is "open" as you say, because the composers decided to be less "in ya face" about it. But make no mistake, it's a prayer for conversion, all right]</span>, and it's clear that if that was the opinion of Paul VI and of John Paul II, <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Well, no, neither Paul VI or JPII were of that opion, so the following statement is not correct:] </span>it's certainly not the opinion of Benedict XVI.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Well this raises the most interesting aspect to me of this whole story, and that is the view I know of some commentators <span style="color:#ff0000;">[No, please, whatever you do, Crittenden, don't name these commentators because that might just reveal that these are the usual ilLiberal, Progressive, non-Orthodox "catholic" commentators you usually resort to or, worse, those who don't know what they are talking about.] </span>that what Pope Benedict has done here, is to take away a recent doctrinal progression, <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Right, ceasing to be orthodox, is a "progression", yeah?] </span>which many Catholics thought <span style="color:#ff0000;">[You mean, duped into thinking] </span>had occurred, namely that Jews have their own separate covenant with God, as you say, and that it's no longer appropriate to evangelise Jews, that he's taken that presumption away.<br /><br />David Rosen: Yes. To be fair, anybody <strong>who is well informed </strong>did know that that was by no means a resolved issue within the church, and that there have been, since the Second Vatican Council, different opinions and different approaches. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Differing approaches, yes, but only ONE teaching, despite the differing academic debate. What has happened is those who disagreed wanted everyone to think that their disagreement and different view, was the new and official view. That's wrong.] </span>And even, as I say, one of the great princes of the church, Cardinal Martini <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Great example of a non-orthodox Cardinal] </span>who now resides in Jerusalem, who has said, as indeed has said Cardinal Kaspar <span style="color:#ff0000;">[and, arguably, another, that this orthodox Pope has had to reign in for his "excesses"]</span>, it is inappropriate for Christians to bring the Christian message to the Jews. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[They would, wouldn't they.] </span>He himself has clarified that he doesn't understand really however, what their full implications are. In other words, he recognises that there is some tension between affirming the eternity of the covenant and affirming the universal salvific nature of Jesus. But he's prepared to say, as many others in the church, there are some things in this world that we can't fully understand, it's in the Almighty's hands to resolve it but the eternal validity of the covenant with the Jewish people is unquestionable, and Vatican II affirms that. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Yes, but not quite in the way they would like it to]. </span><br /><br />Now it seems to me that Benedict XVI, and I'm not a psychologist here, but I'm playing sort of amateur psychologist,<span style="color:#ff0000;"> [ok, so we should be giving this coming statement credence? Wait for it...] </span>in terms of not just theological world view, but in terms of his personality, doesn't like living with ambivalence and leaving these things open, but insists that there has to be a very clear categorical position. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[So, that's a bad thing??] </span>And therefore in this new version he's affirmed what he believes to be the orthodox position and that any doubts or ambivalences need to be put aside. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[So, that's a bad thing?]</span><br /><br />Allow me to add one thing, which gives enormous insight I think for me, into the mindset of Pope Benedict. I met with him first for a real conversation 20 years ago, here in Jerusalem. And he said to me something really interesting. He said: 'You the Jews if you are true to Torah, to God's revelation, you are pure. You are religiously pure. You are not corrupted by anything outside, as has happened even within other religions with the Christian world.' I said to him, 'Well I understand and am deeply moved by that, Your Eminence, <span style="color:#ff0000;">[The future Pope Benedict complementing the Jews? Surely not, given that he's generally so "offensive"] </span>but we're pure but we're not complete?' He said, 'That's another matter'. So then, in rather an impertinent way<span style="color:#ff0000;"> [Would Crittenden call this "offensive" perhaps?]</span>, I said to him, 'Well, Your Eminence, if I've understood you correctly, you're saying we do this, we are true to Torah, we will go to heaven, <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Well, yes, that what the Catholic Church teaches, you know] </span>but we won't get first class row seats.' So he laughed, and he said, 'You know, well I wouldn't put it that way.'<span style="color:#ff0000;"> [Seriously, as if he would. What he would say is that he's only a Cardinal not God and has no idea whether Jews are or are not in the highest choirs of Heaven] </span>But the very fact that he said he wouldn't put it that way, <span style="color:#ff0000;">[er, no, Rabbi, actually, no] </span>means that that's actually his theological world view. Jews are in a state of redemption, but it's not complete redemption, because complete salvation only comes through faith in Jesus, according to him. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Not quite: the uncontroversial interpretation is that Christ came to call all, and some do not hear and others do. He is accepted by some and not by others. He has not be accepted (for various reasons) by the Jews who practice their Jewish faith. Clear, and uncontroverial, no?]</span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: Interesting to see a number of online comments about this story in The Jerusalem Post for example, <span style="color:#ff0000;"></span>where Jews are saying, 'We should revise some of our prayers as well that are hurtful to Christians.' <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Applause, Mr Crittenden: at least you have mentioned this and hinted that there might be a bigger issue here, but let's see where you take it...] </span>I don't know what those prayers would be, <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Well, shouldn't you know the other side of the story before you go on a rant and so you can probe your interviewee in case he's wrong? That's what we can RESEARCH, Mr Crittenden, research] </span>but you might tell me.<br /><br />David Rosen: I don't know of any prayers that are specifically directed at Christians. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[?? Er, we won't presume to tell Rabbi Rosen, but let's look at the prayers that an ortodox Jew says in relation to his/her non-Jewish bretheren, not once a year, but daily: see Fr Z's analysis "<a href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/01/jewish-prayer-about-gentiles-and-catholic-prayer-for-the-jews/" rel="bookmark">Jewish prayer about Gentiles and Catholic prayer for the Jews</a>". </span>There is a passage in one of the prayers at the end of the service, that talks of those that bow down to emptiness and to spittle within the context of looking forward to the elimination of idolatry in the world. And there have been those at certain times in history who have sought to attribute that as a reference to Christianity. And actually, because of accusations from Christian sources within most of the Ashkenazy Jews, Jews from Christian lands, that phrase as already been excised. But there are many that say it never actually was intended to refer to Christianity anyway. <strong>But there's nothing whatsoever explicit in relation to Christianity</strong>. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Er, really. Well, given that The Religion Report is all about insightful analysis, why don't we look at a piece entitled <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">"</span></em><a href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/02/new-good-friday-prayer-shelo-asani-goi-the-logic-of-monotheism-and-its-eschatological-hope/" rel="bookmark"><em><span style="color:#ff0000;">New Good Friday prayer &amp; “shelo asani goi”: the logic of monotheism and its eschatological hope</span></em></a><em><span style="color:#ff0000;">"</span></em> being the analysis of legendary <a href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/02/new-good-friday-prayer-shelo-asani-goi-the-logic-of-monotheism-and-its-eschatological-hope/">Fr Z</a>, who points out that there are some Jewish leaders, like Professor Jacob Neusner, who understand that if Catholics believe as they believe, Catholics are bound to pray for the Jews</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">]</span><br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: A last question. You're a man of culture. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Oh please, Crittenden: the Rabbi is a man of culture, you say, but when the Pope reminds us of the cultural riches that are integral to this particular form of the Roman Rite (Latin, Gregorian Chant, sacred architecture and music), you refuse to call him a "man of culture" he has an abnormal facination with old music, lace, dead languages and is pandering for a by-gone era??] </span>All of the three religions have various aspects of their liturgy or their artistic heritage that may be hurtful or insulting to others. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Fair point, but we don't see the Catholic Church officially or any one else lobbying for <strong>their </strong>change] </span>There are perhaps <span style="color:#ff0000;">[perhaps? Are there or aren't there?] </span>references to Jesus in the Talmud, there are paintings of Mohamed burning in hell on the walls of Bologna Cathedral. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[And plenty of ordinary Catholics, popes and clergy too, in similar depictions the world over, telling us <strong>that we' are ALL </strong>liable to end there. Wake up, Crittenden] </span>There's the wording of the old Tridentine Rite which I guess has been revived in a sense <span style="color:#ff0000;">[no, in no sense, actually]</span>, as a kind of museum piece.<span style="color:#ff0000;"> [wrong again, Crittenden]</span> Don't these things actually belong to history, to the museum, don't they actually need to be carefully preserved? <span style="color:#ff0000;">[The Tridentine Rite is a rite that nourished so many saints of the Church that comments like this beggar belief, unless you aim to be insulting, offensive, ignorant or misleading. And given the state of the liturgy that has prevailed over the last 40 years in most places in the Catholic world, this Pope want to ensure that this Rite continues to live as a heritage, made current in the present and to take us into the future.] </span><br /><br />David Rosen: I think that's a very fair comment that one needs to have a certain degree of respect and also distance from matter of a historic legacy in different times and place.<br /><br />Stephen Crittenden: That's what I meant by the word museum. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Of course, you did]</span><br /><br />David Rosen: Right, and therefore those who want to blot out such beautiful- even if disturbing- mosaics or paintings <span style="color:#ff0000;">[what about the music, the language (Latin), the sacred architecture, and the beliefs and truths they express?] </span>anyone <span style="color:#ff0000;">[including the majority of the il"liberal" "progressive"bishops and priests that the poor, suffering Catholic has to deal with? Or the errant journalist?] </span>who would want to do that I think deserves to be rapped over the knuckles. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[Mr Crittenden, wethinks you are being rapped over the knuckles by a Rabbi] </span>I think that there needs to be a respect even for cultural heritage of cultures <span style="color:#ff0000;">[little wonder that the Rabbi respects his heritage because it is critical to his faith and the faith of Jews; something that Catholics (and journalists) would do well to remember] </span>that may have been of ones oppressors and persecutors. <span style="color:#ff0000;">[perhaps going a bit far, if by this he means that Catholic culture is oppressive and one of oppresion! If he means individual Catholics are and have been, then of course he is absolutely and undeniably correct] </span>That's very different to what your current liturgical expressions are. <strong>Again I re-iterate. I don't think it is the business of the Jews to tell the Christians what they should or shouldn't pray. It's just a matter of being open and clear about what is the nature of our relationship. </strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[So, remind us, what the point of this piece again? </strong>That these prayers were offensive to Jews and mainstream Catholics, who were manning the barricades and protesting vociferously and the injustice and offence they cause??. Thanks, Mr Crittenden, for your insightful, impartial and helpful analysis<strong>]</strong></span><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span></strong><br />Stephen Crittenden: Rabbi David Rosen.<br /><br />Well that's all this week. Thanks to producers Noel Debien and Leila Schunnar. I'm Stephen Crittenden.<br /><br /><br /><em>Soon we'll look at Crittenden's interview on yhis subject to get the "catholic" perspective.</em>The Crittenden Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09939031370247731052noreply@blogger.com1